(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
ST. AUGUSTINE
ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS, Books I-IV
[De baptismo contra Donatistas.]
[Translated by the Rev. J. R. King, M.A., Vicar of St. Peter's in the East,
Oxford; and late fellow and tutor of Merton College, Oxford; revised by the
Rev. Chester D. Hartranft, D.D., Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical
History in the Theological Seminary at Hartford, Connecticut.]
BOOK I.
HE PROVES THAT BAPTISM CAN BE CONFERRED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION BY
HERETICS OR SCHISMATICS, BUT THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE RECEIVED FROM THEM;
AND THAT IT IS OF NO AVAIL TO ANY WHILE IN A STATE OF HERESY OR SCHISM.
CHAP. 1.--1. In the treatise which we wrote against the published
epistle of Parmenianus(1) to Tichonius,(2) we promised that at some future
time we would treat the question of baptism more thoroughly;(3) and indeed,
even if we had not made this promise, we are not unmindful that this is a
debt fairly due from us to the prayers of our brethren. Wherefore in this
treatise we have undertaken, with the help of God, not only to refute the
objections which the Donatists have been wont to urge against us in this
matter, but also to advance what God may enable us to say in respect of the
authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian, which they endeavor to use as a
prop, to prevent their perversity from falling before the attacks of
truth.(4) And this we propose to do, in order that all whose judgment is
not blinded by party spirit may understand that, so far from Cyprian's
authority being in their favor, it tends directly to their refutation and
discomfiture.
2. In the treatise above mentioned, it has already been said that the
grace of baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion, just as
it can be also there retained. But no one of the Donatists themselves
denies that even apostates retain the grace of baptism; for when they
return within the pale of the Church, and are converted through repentance,
it is never given to them a second time, and so it is ruled that it never
could have been lost. So those, too, who in the sacrilege of schism depart
from the communion of the Church, certainly retain the grace of baptism,
which they received before their departure, seeing that, in case of their
return, it is not again conferred on them whence it is proved, that what
they had received while within the unity of the Church, they could not have
lost in their separation. But if it can be retained outside, why may it not
also be given there? If you say, "It is not rightly given without the
pale;" we answer, "As it is not rightly retained, and yet is in some sense
retained, so it is not indeed rightly given, but yet it is given." But as,
by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be profitably possessed which
was possessed to no profit in exclusion from unity, so, by the same
reconciliation, that begins to be profitable which without it was given to
no profit. Yet it cannot be allowed that it should be said that that was
not given which was given, nor that any one should reproach a man with not
having given this, while confessing that he had given what he had himself
received. For the sacrament of baptism is what the person possesses who is
baptized; and the sacrament of conferring baptism is what he possesses who
is ordained. And as the baptized person, if he depart from the unity of the
Church, does not thereby lose the sacrament of baptism, so also he who is
ordained, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not lose the
sacrament of conferring baptism. For neither sacrament may be wronged. If a
sacrament necessarily becomes void in the case of the wicked, both must
become void; if it remain valid with the wicked, this must be so with both.
If, therefore, the baptism be acknowledged which he could not lose who
severed himself from the unity of the Church, that baptism must also be
acknowledged which was administered by one who by his secession had not
lost the sacrament of conferring baptism. For as those who return to the
Church, if they had been baptized before their secession, are not
rebaptized, so those who return, having been ordained before their
secession, are certainly not ordained again; but either they again exercise
their former ministry, if the interests of the Church require it, or if
they do not exercise it, at any rate they retain the sacrament of their
ordination; and hence it is, that when hands are laid on them,(1) to mark
their reconciliation, they are not ranked with the laity. For
Felicianus,(2) when he separated himself from them with Maximianus, was not
held by the Donatists themselves to have lost either the sacrament of
baptism or the sacrament of conferring baptism. For now he is a recognized
member of their own body, in company with those very men whom he baptized
while he was separated from them in the schism of Maximianus. And so others
could receive from them, whilst they still had not joined our society, what
they themselves had not lost by severance from our society. And hence it is
clear that they are guilty of impiety who endeavor to rebaptize those who
are in Catholic unity; and we act rightly who do not dare to repudiate
God's sacraments, even when administered in schism. For in all points in
which they think with us, they also are in communion with us, and only are
severed from us in those points in which they dissent from us. For contact
and disunion are not to be measured by different laws in the case of
material or spiritual affinities. For as union of bodies arises from
continuity of position, so in the agreement of wills there is a kind of
contact between souls. If, therefore, a man who has severed himself from
unity wishes to do anything different from that which had been impressed on
him while in the state of unity, in this point he does sever himself, and
is no longer a part of the united whole; but wherever he desires to conduct
himself as is customary in the state of unity, in which he himself learned
and received the lessons which he seeks to follow, in these points he
remains a member, and is united to the corporate whole.
CHAP. 2.--3. And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in some
matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein they agree
with us we do not forbid them to do; but in those things in which they
differ from us, we earnestly encourage them to come and receive them from
us, or return and recover them, as the case may be; and with whatever means
we can, we lovingly busy ourselves, that they, freed front faults and
corrected, may choose this course. We do not therefore say to them,
"Abstain from giving baptism," but "Abstain from giving it in schism." Nor
do we say to those whom we see them on the point of baptizing, "Do not
receive the baptism," but "Do not receive it in schism." For if any one
were compelled by urgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from
whom to receive baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his
heart, should receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the
sacrament which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man,
should he forthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a
Catholic. But if he should be delivered from the death of the body, on his
restoring himself in bodily presence to that Catholic congregation from
which in heart he had never departed, so far from blaming his conduct, we
should praise it with the greatest truth and confidence; because he trusted
that God was present to his heart, while he was striving to preserve unity,
and was unwilling to depart this life without the sacrament of holy
baptism, which he knew to be of God, and not of men; wherever he might find
it. But if any one who has it in his power to receive baptism within the
Catholic Church prefers, from some perversity of mind, to be baptized in
schism, even if he afterwards bethinks himself to come to the Catholic
Church, because he is assured that there that sacrament will profit him,
which can indeed be received but cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all
question he is perverse, and guilty of sin, and that the more flagrant in
proportion as it was committed wilfully. For that he entertains no doubt
that the sacrament is rightly received in the Church, is proved by his
conviction that it is there that he must look for profit even from what he
has received elsewhere.
CHAP. 3.--4. There are two propositions, moreover, which we affirm,--
that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that in it alone can it be
rightly received,--both of which the Donatists deny. Likewise there are two
other propositions which we affirm,--that baptism exists among the
Donatists, but that with them it is not rightly received, of which two they
strenuously confirm the former, that baptism exists with them; but they are
unwilling to allow the latter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly
received. Of these four propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we
both agree. For that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, that it is
rightly received there, and that it is not rightly received among the
Donatists, are assertions made only by ourselves; but that baptism exists
also among the Donatists, is asserted by them and allowed by us. If any
one, therefore, is desirous of being baptized, and is already convinced
that he ought to choose our Church as a medium for Christian salvation, and
that the baptism of Christ is only profitable in it, even when it has been
received elsewhere, but yet wishes to be baptized in the schism of Donatus,
because not they only, nor we only, but both parties alike say that baptism
exists with them, let him pause and look to the other three points. For if
he has made up his mind to follow us in the points which they deny, though
he prefers what both of us acknowledge, to what only we assert, it is
enough for our purpose that he prefers what they do not affirm and we alone
assert, to what they alone assert. That baptism exists in the Catholic
Church, we assert and they deny. That it is rightly received in the
Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it is not rightly received
in the schism of Donatus, we assert and they deny. As, therefore, he is the
more ready to believe what we alone assert should be believed, so let him
be the more ready to do what we alone declare should be done. But let him
believe more firmly, if he be so disposed, what both parties assert should
be believed, than what we alone maintain. For he is inclined to believe
more firmly that the baptism of Christ exists in the schism of Donatus,
because that is acknowledged by both of us, than that it exists in the
Catholic Church, an assertion made alone by the Catholics. But again, he is
more ready to believe that the baptism of Christ exists also with us, as we
alone assert, than that it does not exist with us, as they alone assert.
For he has already determined and is fully convinced, that where we differ,
our authority is to be preferred to theirs. So that he is more ready to
believe what we alone assert, that baptism is rightly received with us,
than that it is not rightly so received, since that rests only on their
assertion. And, by the same rule, he is more ready to believe what we alone
assert, that it is not rightly received with them, than as they alone
assert, that it is rightly so received. He finds, therefore, that his
confidence in being baptized among the Donatists is somewhat profit-less,
seeing that, though we both acknowledge that baptism exists with them, yet
we do not both declare that it ought to be received from them. But he has
made up his mind to cling rather to us in matters where we disagree. Let
him therefore feel confidence in receiving baptism in our communion, where
he is assured that it both exists and is rightly received; and let him not
receive it in a communion, where those whose opinion he has determined to
follow acknowledge indeed that it exists, but say that it cannot rightly be
received. Nay, even if he should hold it to be a doubtful question, whether
or no it is impossible for that to be rightly received among the Donatists
which he is assured can rightly be received in the Catholic Church, he
would commit a grievous sin, in matters concerning the salvation of his
soul, in the mere fact of preferring uncertainty to certainty. At any rate,
he must be quite sure that a man can be rightly baptized in the Catholic
Church, from the mere fact that he has determined to come over to it, even
if he be baptized elsewhere. But let him at least acknowledge it to be
matter of uncertainty whether a man be not improperly baptized among the
Donatists, when he finds this asserted by those whose Opinion he is
convinced should be preferred to theirs; and, preferring certainty to
uncertainty, let him be baptized here, where he has good grounds for being
assured that it is rightly done, in the fact that when he thought of doing
it elsewhere, he had still determined that he ought afterwards to come over
to this side.
CHAP. 4.--5. Further, if any one fails to understand how it can be that
we assert that the sacrament is not rightly conferred among the Donatists,
while we confess that it exists among them, let him observe that we also
deny that it exists rightly among them, just as they deny that it exists
rightly among those who quit their communion. Let him also consider the
analogy of the military mark, which, though it can both be retained, as by
deserters, and, also be received by those who are not in the army, yet
ought not to be either received or retained outside its ranks; and, at the
same time, it is not changed or renewed when a man is enlisted or brought
back to his service. However, we must distinguish between the case of those
who unwittingly join the ranks of these heretics, under the impression that
they are entering the true Church of Christ, and those who know that there
is no other Catholic Church save that which, according to the promise, is
spread abroad throughout the whole world, and extends even to the utmost
limits of the earth; which, rising amid tares, and seeking rest in the
future from the weariness of offenses, says in the Book of Psalms, "From
the end of the earth I cried unto Thee, while my heart was in weariness:
Thou didst exalt me on a rock."(1) But the rock was Christ, in whom the
apostle says that we are now raised up, and set together in heavenly
places, though not yet actually, but only in hope.(2) And so the psalm goes
on to say, "Thou wast my guide, because Thou art become my hope, a tower of
strength from the face of the enemy."(1) By means of His promises, which
are like spears and javelins stored up in a strongly fortified place, the
enemy is not only guarded against, but overthrown, as he clothes his wolves
in sheep's clothing,(3) that they may say, "Lo, here is Christ, or
there;"(4) and that they may separate many from the Catholic city which is
built upon a hill, and bring them down to the isolation of their own
snares, so as utterly to destroy them. And these men, knowing this, choose
to receive the baptism of Christ without the limits of the communion of the
unity of Christ's body, though they intend afterwards, with the sacrament
which they have received elsewhere, to pass into that very communion. For
they propose to receive Christ's baptism in antagonism to the Church of
Christ, well knowing that it is so even on the very day on which they
receive it. And if this is a sin, who is the man that will say, Grant that
for a single day I may commit sin? For if he proposes to pass over to the
Catholic Church, I would fain ask why. What other answer can he give, but
that it is ill to belong to the party of Donatus, and not to the unity of
the Catholic Church? Just so many days, then, as you commit this ill, of so
many days' sin are you going to be guilty. And it may be said that there is
greater sin in more days' commission of it, and less in fewer; but in no
wise can it be said that no sin is committed at all. But what is the need
of allowing this accursed wrong for a single day, or a single hour? For the
man who wishes this license to be granted him, might as well ask of the
Church, or of God Himself, that for a single day he should be permitted to
apostatize. For there is no reason why he should fear to be an apostate for
a day, if he does not shrink from being for that time a schismatic or a
heretic.
CHAP. 5.--6. I prefer, he says, to receive Christ's baptism where both
parties agree that it exists. But those whom you intend to join say that it
cannot be received there rightly; and those who say that it can be received
there rightly are the party whom you mean to quit. What they say,
therefore, whom you yourself consider of inferior authority, in opposition
to what those say whom you yourself prefer, is, if not false, at any rate,
to use a milder term, at least uncertain. I entreat you, therefore, to
prefer what is true to what is false, or what is certain to what is
uncertain. For it is not only those whom you are going to join, but you
yourself who are going to join them, that confess that what you want can be
rightly received in that body which you mean to join when you have received
it elsewhere. For if you had any doubts whether it could be rightly
received there, you would also have doubts whether you ought to make the
change. If, therefore, it is doubtful whether it be not sin to receive
baptism from the party of Donatus, who can doubt but that it is certain sin
not to prefer receiving it where it is certain that it is not sin? And
those who are baptized there through ignorance, thinking that it is the
true Church of Christ, are guilty of less sin in comparison than these,
though even they are wounded by the impiety of schism; nor do they escape a
grievous hurt, because others suffer even more. For when it is said to
certain men, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day
of judgment than for you,"(1) it is not meant that the men of Sodom shall
escape torment, but only that the others shall be even more grievously
tormented.
7. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity and
doubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give heed and
receive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those who, when
they are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their madness to
their own destruction. For the condemnation of the party of Maximianus, and
their restoration after they had been condemned, together with those whom
they had sacrilegiously, to use the language of their own Council? baptized
in schism, settles the whole question in dispute, and removes all
controversy. There is no point at issue between ourselves and those
Donatists who hold communion with Primianus, which could give rise to any
doubt that the baptism of Christ may not only be retained, but even
conferred by those who are severed from the Church. For as they themselves
are obliged to confess that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism
received true baptism, inasmuch as they now acknowledge them as members of
their own body, with no other baptism than that which they received in
schism; so we say that that is Christ's baptism, even without the pale of
Catholic communion, which they confer who are cut off from that communion,
inasmuch as they had not lost it when they were cut off. And what they
themselves think that they conferred on those persons whom Felicianus
baptized in schism, when they admitted them to reconcilation with
themselves, viz., not that they should receive that which they did not as
yet possess, but that what they had received to no advantage in schism, and
were already in possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really
confers and bestows through the Catholic communion on those who come from
any heresy or schism in which they received the baptism of Christ; viz.,
not that they should begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not
possessing it before, but that what they already possessed should now begin
to profit them.
CHAP. 6.--8. Between us, then, and what we may call the genuine(3)
Donatists, whose bishop is Primianus at Carthage, there is now no
controversy on this point. For God willed that it should be ended by means
of the followers of Maximianus, that they should be compelled by the
precedent of his case to acknowledge what they would not allow at the
persuasion of Christian charity. But this brings us to consider next,
whether those men do not seem to have something to say for themselves, who
refuse communion with the party of Primianus, contending that in their body
there remains greater sincerity of Donatism, just in proportion to the
paucity of their numbers. And even if these were only the party of
Maximianus, we should not be justified in despising their salvation. How
much more, then, are we bound to consider it, when we find that this same
party of Donatus is split up into many most minute fractions, all which
small sections of the body blame the one much larger portion which has
Primianus for its head, because they receive the baptism of the followers
of Maximianus; while each endeavors to maintain that it is the sole
receptacle of true baptism, which exists nowhere else, neither in the whole
of the world where the Catholic Church extends itself, nor in that larger
main body of the Donatists, nor even in the other minute sections, but only
in itself. Whereas, if all these fragments would listen not to the voice of
man, but to the most unmistakable manifestation of the truth, and would be
willing to curb the fiery temper of their own perversity, they would return
from their own barrenness, not indeed to the main body of Donatus, a mere
fragment of which they are a smaller fragment, but to the never-failing
fruitfulness of the root of the Catholic Church. For all of them who are
not against us are for us; but when they gather not with us, they scatter
abroad.
CHAP. 7.--9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on
mere human arguments,--since there is so much obscurity in this question,
that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has
caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts
were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving
always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of their Councils
in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length
the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts,
by a plenary Council of the whole world:(1)--I therefore bring forward from
the gospel clear proofs, by which I propose, with God's help, to prove how
rightly and truly in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the
case of every schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation
should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained sound
in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than wounded I by
condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, "He that
is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth
abroad."(2) Yet when the disciples had brought word to Him that they had
seen one casting out devils in His name, and had forbidden him, because he
followed not them, He said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us
is for us. For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that
can lightly speak evil of me."(3) If, indeed, there were nothing in this
man requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself
outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all Christian
brotherhood, should gather in Christ's name; and so there would be no truth
in this, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not
with me scattereth abroad." But if he required correction in the point
where the disciples in their ignorance were anxious to check him, why did
our Lord, by saying, "Forbid him not," prevent this check from being given?
And how can that be true which He then says, "He that is not against you is
for you?" For in this point he was not against, but for them, when he was
working miracles of healing in Christ's name. That both, therefore, should
be true, as both are true,--both the declaration, that "he that is not with
me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad;" and
also the injunction, "Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for
you,"--what must we understand, except that the man was to be confirmed in
his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of which he was not against
the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be bland for separating himself
from the Church, whereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it
should have so happened that he sought union with the Church, he should not
have received what he already possessed, but be made to set right the
points wherein he had gone astray?
CHAP. 8.--10. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius
unheard, nor did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy that an
angel should be sent to him, and that he should behold the messenger,
through whom he might assuredly have learned everything that was necessary,
without requiring that any man should come to him. But since all the good
that he had in his prayers and alms could not benefit him unless he were
incorporated in the Church by the bond of Christian brotherhood and peace,
he was ordered to send to Peter, and through him learned Christ; and, being
also baptized by his orders, he was joined by the tie of communion to the
fellowship of Christians, to which before he was bound only by the likeness
of good works.(4) And indeed it would have been most fatal to despise what
he did not yet possess, vaunting himself in what he had. So too those who,
by separating themselves from the society of their fellows, to the
overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity, if they observe none of
the things which they have received in that society, are separated in
everything; and so any one whom they have joined to their society, if he
afterwards wish to come over to the Church, ought to receive everything
which he has not already received. But if they observe some of the same
things, in respect of these they have not severed themselves; and so far
they are still a part of the framework of the Church, while in all other
respects they are cut off from it. Accordingly, any one whom they have
associated with themselves is united to the Church in all those points in
which they are not separated from it. And therefore, if he wish to come
over to the Church, he is made sound in those points in which he was
unsound and went astray; but where he was sound in union with the Church,
he is not cured, but recognized,--lest in desiring to cure what is sound we
should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize they heal
from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them more seriously
with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the people of the Lord were
smitten with the sword;(1) but schismatics were swallowed up by the earth
opening her mouth.(2) And the apostle says, "Though I have all faith, so
that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."(3)
11. If any one is brought to the surgeon, afflicted with a grievous
wound in some vital part of the body, and the surgeon says that unless it
is cured it must cause death, the friends who brought him do not, I
presume, act so foolishly as to count over to the surgeon all his sound
limbs, and, drawing his attention to them, make answer to him, "Can it be
that all these sound limbs are of no avail to save his life, and that one
wounded limb is enough to cause his death?" They certainly do not say this,
but they entrust him to the surgeon to be cured. Nor, again, because they
so entrust him, do they ask the surgeon to cure the limbs that are sound as
well; but they desire him to apply drugs with all care to the one part from
which death is threatening the other sound parts too, with the certainty
that it must come, unless the wound be healed. What will it then profit a
man that he has sound faith, or perhaps only soundness in the sacrament of
faith, when the soundness of his charity is done away with by the fatal
wound of schism, so that by the overthrow of it the other points, which
were in themselves sound, are brought into the infection of death? To
prevent which, the mercy of God, through the unity of His holy Church, does
not cease striving that they may come and be healed by the medicine of
reconciliation, through the bond of peace. And let them not think that they
are sound because we admit that they have something sound in them; nor let
them think, on the other hand, that what is sound must needs be healed,
because we show that in some parts there is a wound. So that in the
soundness of the sacrament, because they are not against us, they are for
us; but in the wound of schism, because they gather not with Christ, they
scatter abroad. Let them not be exalted by what they have. Why do they pass
the eyes of pride over those parts only which are sound? Let them
condescend also to look humbly on their wound, and give heed not only to
what they have, but also to what is wanting in them.
CHAP. 9.--12. Let them see how many things, and what important things,
are of no avail, if a certain single thing be wanting, and let them see
what that one thing is. And herein let them hear not my words, but those of
the apostle: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and
have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And
though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all
knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
and have not charity, I am nothing.(4) What does it profit them, therefore,
if they have both the voice of angels in the sacred mysteries, and the gift
of prophecy, as had Caiaphas(5) and Saul,(6) that so they may be found
prophesying, of whom Holy Scripture testifies that they were worthy of
condemnation? If they not only know, but even possess the sacraments, as
Simon Magus did;(7) if they have faith, as the devils confessed Christ (for
we must not suppose that they did not believe when they said, "What have we
to do with Thee, O Son of God? We know Thee who Thou art"(8); if they
distribute of themselves their own substance to the poor, as many do, not
only in the Catholic Church, but in the different heretical bodies; if,
under the pressure of any persecution, they give their bodies with us to be
burned for the faith which they like us confess: yet because they do all
these things apart from the Church, not "forbearing one another in love,"
nor "endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,"(9)
insomuch as they have not charity, they cannot attain to eternal salvation,
even with all those good things which profit them not.
CHAP. 10.--13. But they think within themselves that they show very
great subtlety in asking whether the baptism of Christ in the party of
Donatus makes men sons or not; so that, if we allow, that it does make them
sons, they may assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which could
give birth to sons in the baptism of Christ; and since the Church must be
one, they may allege that ours is no Church. But if we say that it does not
make them sons, "Why then," say they, "do you not cause those who pass from
us to you to be born again in baptism, after they have been baptized with
us, if they are not thereby born as yet?"
14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in virtue
of what constitutes its division, and not from what causes its union with
the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and charity, but it is
joined in one baptism. And so there is one Church which alone is called
Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its own in these communions of
different bodies which are separate from itself, it is most certainly in
virtue of this which is its Own in each of them that it, not they, has the
power of generation. For neither is it their separation that generates, but
what they have retained of the essence of the Church; and if they were to
go on to abandon this, they would lose the power of generation. The
generation, then, in each case proceeds from the Church, whose sacraments
are retained, from which any such birth can alone in any case proceed,--
although not all who receive its birth belong to its unity, which shall
save those who persevere even to the end. Nor is it those only that do not
belong to it who are openly guilty of the manifest sacrilege of schism, but
also those who, being outwardly joined to its unity, are yet separated by a
life of sin. For the Church had herself given birth to Simon Magus through
the sacrament of baptism; and yet it was declared to him that he had no
part in the inheritance of Christ.(1) Did he lack anything in respect of
baptism, of the gospel, of the sacraments? But in that he wanted charity,
he was born in vain; and perhaps it had been well for him that he had never
been born at all. Was anything wanting to their birth to whom the apostle
says, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, even as babes in
Christ"? Yet he recalls them from the sacrilege of schism, into which they
were rushing, because they were carnal: "I have fed you," he says, "with
milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither
yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you
envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one
saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not men?"(2) For
of these he says above: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no
divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same
mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto, me of you,
my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are
contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of
Paul, and I of Apollos, land I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ
divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of
Paul?"(3) These, therefore, if they continued in the same perverse
obstinacy, were doubtless indeed born, but yet would not belong by the bond
of peace and unity to the very Church in respect of which they were born.
Therefore she herself bears them in her own womb and in the womb of her
handmaids, by virtue of the same sacraments, as though by virtue of the
seed of her husband. For it is not without meaning that the apostle says
that all these things were done by way of figure.(4) But those who are too
proud, and are not joined to their lawful mother, are like Ishmael, of whom
it is said, "Cast out this bond-woman and her Son: for the son of the bond-
woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."(5) But those who
peacefully love the lawful wife of their father, whose sons they are by
lawful descent, are like the sons of Jacob, born indeed of handmaids, but
yet receiving the same inheritance.(6) But those who are born within the
family, of the womb of the mother herself, and then neglect the grace they
have received, are like Isaac's son Esau, who was rejected, God Himself
bearing witness to it, and saying, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau;"(7)
and that though they were twin-brethren, the offspring of the same womb.
CHAP. 11.--15. They ask also, "Whether sins are remitted in baptism in
the party of Donatus:" so that, if we say that they are remitted, they may
answer, then the Holy Spirit is there; for when by the breathing of our
Lord the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, He then went on to say,
"Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost."(8) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."(9) And if it is so,
they say, then our communion is the Church of Christ; for the Holy Spirit
does not work the remission of sins except in the Church. And if our
communion is the Church of Christ, then your communion is not the Church of
Christ. For that is one, wherever it is, of which it is said, "My dove is
but one; she is the only one of her mother;"(10) nor can there be just so
many churches as there are schisms. But if we should say that sins are not
there remitted, then, say they, there is no true baptism there; and
therefore ought you to baptize those whom you receive from us. And since
you do not do this, you confess that you are not in the Church of Christ.
16. To these we reply, following the Scriptures, by asking them to
answers themselves what they ask of us. For I beg them to tell us whether
there is any remission of sins where there is not charity; for sins are the
darkness of the soul. For we find St. John saying, "He that hateth his
brother is still in darkness."(1) But none would create schisms, if they
were not blinded by hatred of their brethren. If, therefore, we say that
sins are not remitted there, how is he regenerate who is baptized among
them? And what is regeneration in baptism, except the being renovated from
the corruption of the old man? And how can he be so renovated whose past
sins are not remitted? But if he be not regenerate, neither does he put on
Christ; from which it seems to follow that he ought to be baptized again.
For the apostle says, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ;"(2) and if he has not so put on Christ, neither should
he be considered to have been baptized in Christ. Further, since we say
that he has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ;
and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate, And if this be
so, how does St. John say, "He that hateth his brother remaineth still in
darkness," if remission of his sins has already taken place? Can it be that
schism does not involve hatred of one's brethren? Who will maintain this,
when both the origin of, and perseverance in schism consists in nothing
else save hatred of the brethren?
17. They think that they solve this question widen they say: "There is
then no remission of sins in schism, and therefore no creation of the new
man by regeneration, and accordingly neither is there the baptism of
Christ." But since we confess that the baptism of Christ exists in schism,
we propose this question to them for solution: Was Simon Magus endued with
the true baptism of Christ? They will answer, Yes; being compelled to do so
by the authority of holy Scripture. I ask them whether they confess that he
received remission of his sins. They will certainly acknowledge it. So I
ask why Peter said to him that he had no part in the hot of the saints.
Because, they say, he sinned afterwards, wishing to buy with money the gift
of God, which he believed the apostles were able to sell.
CHAP. 12.--18. What if he approached baptism itself in deceit? were his
sins remitted, or were they not? Let them choose which they will. Whichever
they choose will answer our purpose. If they say they were remitted, how
then shall "the Holy Spirit of discipline flee deceit,"(3) if in him who
was full of deceit He worked remission of sins? If they say they were not
remitted, I ask whether, if he should afterwards confess his sin with
contrition of heart and true sorrow, it would be judged that he ought to be
baptized again. And if it is mere madness to assert this, then let them
confess that a man can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ, and
that yet his heart, persisting in malice or sacrilege, may not allow
remission of sins to be given; and so let them understand that men may be
baptized in communions severed from the Church, in which Christ's baptism
is given and received in the said celebration of the sacrament, but that it
will only then be of avail for the remission of sins, when the recipient,
being reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from the sacrilege
of deceit, by which his sins were retained, and their remission prevented.
For, as in the case of him who had approached the sacrament in deceit there
is no second baptism, but he is purged by faithful discipline and truthful
confession, which he could not be without baptism, so that what was given
before becomes then powerful to work his salvation, when the former deceit
is done away by the truthful confession; so also in the case of the man
who, while an enemy to the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy
or schism the baptism of Christ, which the schismatics in question had not
lost from among them, though by his sacrilege his sins were not remitted,
yet, when he corrects his error, and comes over to the communion and unity
of the Church, he ought not to be again baptized: because by his very
reconciliation to the peace of the Church he receives this benefit, that
the sacrament now begins in unity to be of avail for the remission of his
sins, which could not so avail him as received in schism.
19. But if they should say that in the man who has approached the
sacrament in deceit, his sins are indeed removed by the holy power of so
great a sacrament at the moment when he received it, but return immediately
in consequence of his deceit: so that the Holy Spirit has both been present
with him at his baptism for the removal of his sins, and has also fled
before his perseverance in deceit so that they should return: so that both
declarations prove true,--both, "As many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ;" and also, "The holy spirit of discipline will
flee deceit; "--that is to say, that both the holiness of baptism clothes
him with Christ, and the sinfulness of deceit strips him of Christ; like
the case of a man who passes. from darkness through light into darkness
again, his eyes being always directed towards darkness, though the light
cannot but penetrate them as he passes;--if they should say this, let them
understand that this is also the case with those who are baptized without
the pale of the Church, but yet with the baptism of the Church, which is
holy in itself, wherever it may be; and which therefore belongs not to
those who separate themselves, but to the body from which they are
separated; while yet it avails even among them so far, that they pass
through its light back to their own darkness, their sins, which in that
moment had been dispelled by the holiness of baptism, returning immediately
upon them, as though it were the darkness returning which the light had
dispelled while they were passing through it.
20. For that sins which have been remitted do return upon a man, where
there is no brotherly love, is most clearly taught by our Lord, in the case
of the servant whom He found owing Him ten thousand talents, and to whom He
yet forgave all at his entreaty. But when he refused to have pity on his
fellow-servant who owed him a hundred pence, the Lord commanded him to pay
what He had forgiven him. The time, then, at which pardon is received
through baptism is as it were the time for rendering accounts, so that all
the debts which are found to be due may be remitted. Yet it was not
afterwards that the servant lent his fellow-servant the money, which he had
so pitilessly exacted when the other was unable to pay it; but his fellow-
servant already owed him the debt, when he himself, on rendering his
accounts to his master, was excused a debt of so vast an amount. He had not
first excused his fellow-servant, and so come to receive forgiveness from
his Lord. This is proved by the words of the fellow-servant: "Have patience
with me, and I will pay thee all." Otherwise he would have said, "You
forgave me it before; why do you again demand it?" This is made more clear
by the words of the Lord Himself. For He says, "But the same servant went
out, and found one of his fellow-servants which was owing(1) him a hundred
pence."(2) He does not say, "To whom he had already forgiven a debt of a
hundred pence." Since then He says, "was owing him," it is clear that he
had not forgiven him the debt. And indeed it would have been better, and
more in accordance with the position of a man who was going to render an
account of so great a debt, and expected forbearance from his lord, that he
should first have forgiven his fellow-servant what was due to him, and so
have come to render the account when there was such need for imploring the
compassion of his lord. Yet the fact that he had not yet forgiven his
fellow-servant, did not prevent his lord from forgiving him all his debts
on the occasion of receiving his accounts. But what advantage was it to
him, since they all immediately returned with redoubled force upon his
head, m consequence of his persistent want of charity? So the grace of
baptism is not prevented from giving remission of all sins, even if he to
whom they are forgiven continues to cherish hatred towards his brother in
his heart. For the guilt of yesterday is remitted, and all that was before
it, nay, even the guilt of the very hour and moment previous to baptism,
and during baptism itself. But then he immediately begins again to be
responsible, not only for the days, hours, moments which ensue, but also
for the past,--the guilt of all the sins which were remitted returning on
him, as happens only too frequently in the Church.
CHAP. 13.--21. For it often happens that a man has an enemy whom he
hates most unjustly; although we are commanded to love even our unjust
enemies, and to pray for them. But in some sudden danger of death he begins
to be uneasy, and desires baptism, which he receives in such haste, that
the emergency scarcely admits of the necessary formal examination of a few
words, much less of a long conversation, so that this hatred should be
driven from his heart, even supposing it to be known to the minister who
baptizes him. Certainly cases of this sort are still found to occur not
only with us, but also with them. What shall we say then? Are this man's
sins forgiven or not? Let them choose just which alternative they prefer.
For if they are forgiven, they immediately return: this is the teaching of
the gospel, the authoritative announcement of truth. Whether, therefore,
they are forgiven or not, medicine is necessary afterwards; and yet if the
man lives, and learns that his fault stands in need of correction, and
corrects it, he is not baptized anew, either with them or with us. So in
the points in which schismatics and heretics neither entertain different
opinions nor observe different practice from ourselves, we do not correct
them when they join us, but rather commend what we find in them. For where
they do not differ from us, they are not separated from us. But because
these things do them. no good so long as they are schismatics or heretics,
on account of other points in which they differ from us, not to mention the
most grievous sin that is involved in separation itself, therefore, whether
their sins remain in them, or return again immediately after remission, in
either ease we exhort them to come to the soundness of peace and Christian
charity, not only that they may obtain something which they had not before,
but also that what they had may begin to be of use to them.
CHAP. 14.--22. It is to no purpose, then, that they say to us, "If you
acknowledge our baptism, what do we lack that should make you suppose that
we ought to think seriously of joining your communion?" For we reply, We do
not acknowledge any baptism of yours; for it is not the baptism of
schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the Church, wheresoever it may
be found, and whithersoever it may be transferred. But it is in no sense
yours, except because you entertain false opinions, and do sacrilegious
acts, and have impiously separated yourselves from the Church. For if
everything else in your practice and opinions were true, and still you were
to persist in this same separation. contrary to the bond of brotherly
peace, contrary to the union of all the brethren, who have been manifest,
according to the promise, in all the world; the particulars of whose
history, and the secrets of whose hearts, you never could have known or
considered in every case, so as to have a right to condemn them; who,
moreover, cannot be liable to condemnation for submitting themselves to the
judges of the Church rather than to one of the parties to the dispute,--in
this one thing, at least, in such a case, you are deficient, in which he is
deficient who lacks charity. Why should we go over our argument again? Look
and see yourselves in the apostle, how much there is that you lack. For
what does it matter to him who lacks charity, whether he be carried away
outside the Church at once by some blast of temptation, or remain within
the Lord's harvest. so as to be separated only at the final winnowing? And
vet even such, if they have once been born in baptism, need not be born
again.
CHAP. 15.--23. For it is the Church that gives birth to all, either
within her pale, of her own womb; or beyond it, of the seed of her
bridegroom,--(either of herself, or of her handmaid.(1)) But Esau, even
though born of the lawful wife, was separated from the people of God
because he quarrelled with his brother. And Asher, born indeed by the
authority of a wife, but yet of a handmaid, was admitted to the land of
promise on account of his brotherly good-will. Whence also it was not the
being born of a handmaid, but his quarrelling with his brother, that stood
in the way of Ishmael, to cause his separation from the people of God; and
he received no benefit from the power of the wife, whose son he rather was,
inasmuch as it was in virtue of her conjugal rights that he was both
conceived in and born of the womb of the handmaid. Just as with the
Donatists it is by the right of the Church, which exists in baptism, that
whosoever is born receives his birth; but if they agree with their
brethren, through the unity of peace they come to the land of promise, not
to be again cast out from the bosom of their true mother, but to be
acknowledged in the seed of their father; but if they persevere in discord,
they will belong to the line of Ishmael. For Ishmael was first, and then
Isaac; and Esau was the elder, Jacob the younger. Not that heresy gives
birth before the Church, or that the Church herself gives birth first to
those who are carnal or animal, and afterwards to those who are spiritual;
but because, in the actual lot of our mortality, in which we are born of
the seed of Adam, "that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural, and afterward that which is spiritual."(2) But from mere animal
sensation, because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God,"(3) arise all dissensions and schisms. And the apostle says(4) that
all who persevere in this animal sensation belong to the old covenant. that
is, to the desire of earthly promises, which are indeed the type of the
spiritual; but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God."(3)
24. At whatever time, therefore, men have begun to be of such a nature
in this life, that, although they have partaken of such divine sacraments
as were appointed for the dispensation under which they lived, they yet
savor of carnal things, and hope for and desire carnal things from God,
whether in this life or afterwards, they are yet carnal. But the Church,
which is the people of God, is an ancient institution even in the
pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal interest in some men, a spiritual
interest in others. To the carnal belongs the old covenant, to the
spiritual the new. But in the first days both were hidden, from Adam even
to Moses. But by Moses the old covenant was made manifest, and in it was
hidden the new covenant, because after a secret fashion it was typified.
But so soon as the Lord came in the flesh, the new covenant was revealed;
yet, though the sacraments of the old covenant passed away; the
dispositions peculiar to it did not pass away. For they still exist in
those whom the apostle declares to be already born indeed by the sacrament
of the new covenant, but yet capable, as being natural, of receiving the
things of the Spirit of God. For, as in the sacraments of the old covenant
some persons were already spiritual, belonging secretly to the new
covenant, which was then concealed so now also in the sacrament of the new
covenant, which has been by this time revealed many live who are natural.
And if they will not advance to receive the things of the Spirit of God, to
which the discourse of the apostle urges them, they will still belong to
the old covenant. But if they advance, even before they receive them, yet
by their very advance and approach they belong to the new covenant; and if,
before becoming spiritual, they are snatched away from this life, yet
through the protection of the holiness of the sacrament they are reckoned
in the land of the living, where the Lord is our hope and our portion. Nor
can I find any truer interpretation of the scripture, "Thine eyes did see
my substance, yet being imperfect"(1) considering what follows, "And in Thy
book shall all be written."(2)
CHAP. 16.--25. But the same mother which brought forth Abel, and Enoch,
and Noah, and Abraham, brought forth also Moses and the prophets who
succeeded him till the coming of our Lord; and the mother which gave birth
to them gave birth also to our apostles and martyrs, and all good
Christians. For all these that have appeared have been born indeed at
different times, but are included in the society of our people; and it is
as citizens of the same state that they have experienced the labors of this
pilgrimage, and some of them are experiencing them, and others will
experience them even to the end. Again, the mother who brought forth Cain,
and Ham, and Ishmael, and Esau, brought forth also Dathan and others like
him in the same people; and she who gave birth to them gave birth also to
Judas the false apostle, and Simon Magus, and all the other false
Christians who up to this time have persisted obstinately in their carnal
affections, whether they have been mingled in the unity of the Church, or
separated from it in open schism. But when men of this kind have the gospel
preached to them, and receive the sacraments at the hand of those who are
spiritual, it is as though Rebecca gave birth to them of her own womb, as
she did to Esau; but when they are produced in the midst of the people of
God through the instrumentality of those who preach the gospel not
sincerely? Sarah is indeed the mother, but through Hagar. So when good
spiritual disciples are produced by the preaching or baptism of those who
are carnal, Leah, indeed, or Rachel, gives birth to them in her right as
wife, but from the womb of a handmaid. But when good and faithful disciples
are born of those who are spiritual in the gospel, and either attain to the
development of spiritual age, or do not cease to strive in that direction,
or are only deterred from doing so by want of power, these are born like
Isaac from the womb of Sarah, or Jacob from the womb of Rebecca, in the new
life and the new covenant.
CHAP. 17.--26. Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are
openly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is chaff,
whether they persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the threshing-
floor, or, when temptation befalls them, are carried out as it were by the
blast of some wind. And even that man is always severed from the unity of
the Church which is without spot or wrinkle,(4) who associates with the
congregation of the saints in carnal obstinacy. Yet we ought to despair of
no man, whether he be one who shows himself to be of this nature within the
pale of the Church, or whether he more openly opposes it from without. But
the spiritual, or those who are steadily advancing with pious exertion
towards this end, do not stray without the pale; since even when, by some
perversity or necessity among men, they seem to be driven forth, they are
more approved than if they had remained within, since they are in no degree
roused to contend against the Church, but remain rooted in the strongest
foundation of Christian charity on the solid rock of unity. For hereunto
belongs what is said in the sacrifice of Abraham: "But the birds divided he
not."(5)
CHAP. 18.--27. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I have
argued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest schism which
is called by the "name of the Donatists, it only remains that on the
subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what the universal
Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism. And yet, if within
the Church different men still held different opinions on the point,
without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one clear and simple
decree should have been passed by an universal Council, it would have been
right for the charity which seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error
of human infirmity, as it is written "For charity shall cover the multitude
of sins."(1) For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of all other
things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is
found pardon for the absence of some missing things.
28. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed
martyr Cyprian, in his letters,--to come at last to him of whose authority
they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love
they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of
the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary
Council,(2) what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to
him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African
churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the
Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew. And I take
it, that the reason why the Lord did not reveal the error in this to a man
of such eminence, was, that his pious humility and charity in guarding the
peace and health of the Church might be made manifest, and might be
noticed, so as to serve as an example of healing power, so to speak, not
only to Christians of that age, but also to those who should come after.
For when a bishop of so important a Church, himself a man of so great merit
and virtue, endowed with such excellence of heart and power of eloquence,
entertained an opinion about baptism different from that which was to be
confirmed by a more diligent searching into the truth; though many of his
colleagues held what was not yet made manifest by authority, but was
sanctioned by the past custom of the Church, and afterwards embraced by the
whole Catholic world; yet under these circumstances he did not sever
himself, by refusal of communion, from the others who thought differently,
and indeed never ceased to urge on the others that they should "forbear one
another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace."(3) For so, while the framework of the body remained whole, if any
infirmity occurred in certain of its members, it might rather regain its
health from their general soundness, than be deprived of the chance of any
healing care by their death in severance from the body. And if he had
severed himself, how many were there to follow! what a name was he likely
to make for himself among men! how much more widely would the name of
Cyprianist have spread than that of Donatist! But he was not a son of
perdition, one of those of whom it is said, "Thou castedst them down while
they were elevated;" but he was the son of the peace of the Church, who in
the clear illumination of his mind failed to see one thing, only that
through him another thing might be more excellently seen. "And yet," says
the apostle, "show I unto you a more excellent way: though I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding
brass, or a tinkling cymbal."(5) He had therefore imperfect insight into
the hidden mystery of the sacrament. But if he had known the mysteries of
all sacraments, without having charity, it would have been nothing. But as
he, with imperfect insight into the mystery, was careful to preserve
charity with all courage and humility and faith, he deserved to come to the
crown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud had crept over the clearness of
his intellect from his infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by the
glorious brightness of his blood. For it was not in vain that our Lord
Jesus Christ, when He declared Himself to be the vine, and His disciples,
as it were, the branches in the vine, gave command that those which bare no
fruit should be cut off, and removed from the vine as useless branches.(6)
But what is really fruit, save that new offspring, of which He further
says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another?"(7)
This is that very charity, without which the rest profiteth nothing. The
apostle also says: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-
suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;"(8) which all
begin with charity, and with the rest of the combination forms one unity in
a kind of wondrous cluster.(9) Nor is it again in vain that our Lord added,
"And every branch that beareth fruit, my Father purgeth it, that it may
bring forth more fruit,"(10) but because those who are strong in the fruit
of charity may yet have something which requires purging, which the
Husbandman will not leave untended. Whilst then, that holy man entertained
on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which
was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent
consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic
unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared away
by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
CHAP. 19.--29. But that I may not seem to be uttering these praises of
the blessed martyr (which, indeed, are not his, but rather those of Him by
whose grace he showed himself what he was), in order to escape the burden
of proof, let us now bring forward from his letters the testimony by which
the mouths of the Donatists may most of all be stopped. For they advance
his authority before the unlearned, to show that in a manner they do well
when they baptize afresh the faithful who come to them. Too wretched are
they--and, unless they correct themselves, even by themselves are they
utterly condemned--who choose in the example set them by so great a man to
imitate just that fault, which only did not injure him, because he walked
with constant steps even to the end in that from which they have strayed
who "have not known the way of peace."(1) It is true that Christ's baptism
is holy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet it
does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those who come
from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be baptized afresh.
Yet to err on this point is one thing; it is another thing that those who
are straying from the peace of the Church, and have fallen headlong into
the pit of schism, should go on to decide that any who join them ought to
be baptized again. For the former is a speck on the brightness of a holy
soul which abundance of charity(2) would fain have covered; the latter is a
stain in their nether foulness which the hatred of peace in their
countenance ostentatiously brings to light. But the subject for our further
consideration, relating to the authority of the blessed Cyprian, we will
commence from a fresh beginning.
BOOK II.
IN WHICH AUGUSTIN PROVES THAT IT IS TO NO PURPOSE THAT THE DONATISTS BRING
FORWARD THE AUTHORITY OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR, SINCE IT IS REALLY
MORE OPPOSED TO THEM THAN TO THE CATHOLICS. FOR THAT HE HELD THAT THE VIEW
OF HIS PREDECESSOR AGRIPPINUS, ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTIZING HERETICS IN THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN THEY JOIN ITS COMMUNION, SHOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED ON
CONDITION THAT PEACE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED WITH THOSE WHO ENTERTAINED THE
OPPOSITE VIEW, AND THAT THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH SHOULD NEVER BE BROKEN BY
ANY KIND OF SCHISM.
CHAP. 1.--1. HOW much the arguments make for us, that is, for catholic
peace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward against us from
the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much they prove against those
who bring them forward, it is my intention, with the help of God, to show
in the ensuing book. If, therefore, in the course of my argument, I am
obliged to repeat what l have already said in other treatises (although I
will do so as little as I can,) yet this ought not to be objected to by
those who have already read them and agree with them; since it is not only
right that those things which are necessary for instruction should be
frequently instilled into men of dull intelligence, but even in the case of
those who are endowed with larger understanding, it contributes very much
both to make their learning easier and their powers of teaching readier,
where the same points are handled and discussed in many various ways. For I
know how much it discourages a reader, when he comes upon any knotty
question in the book which he has in hand, to find himself presently
referred for its solution to another which he happens not to have.
Wherefore, if I am compelled, by the urgency of the present questions, to
repeat what I have already said in other books, I would seek forgiveness
from those who know those books already, that those who are ignorant may
have their difficulties removed; for it is better to give to one who has
already, than to abstain from satisfying any one who is in want.
2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed(1)
by the force of truth, with which they will not agree? "Cyprian," say they,
"whose great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed in a Council,(2)
with many of his fellow-bishops contributing their several opinions, that
all heretics and schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the
communion of the one Church, are without baptism; and therefore, whosoever
has joined the communion of the Church after being baptized by them must be
baptized in the Church." The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me,
because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of
the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of
the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in
his epistle to Quintus? "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first,
and on whom He built His Church,(3) when Paul afterwards disputed with him
about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to
himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed
of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he
had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of
truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul
maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we
should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account
as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues
for the common health and weal."(1) Here is a passage in which Cyprian
records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in
whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was
corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter
of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was therefore
possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the
truth of the gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul
writes in that epistle in which he calls God to witness that he does not
lie; for he says, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before
God, I lie not;"(2) and, after this sacred and awful calling of God to
witness, he told the whole tale, saying in the course of it, "But when I
saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I
said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the
manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"(3)--if Peter, I say, could compel the
Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of
truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in
opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held,
compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh? I suppose that there
is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown
of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect
towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship
is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference
in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their
martyrdom. And whether it may be the case that the hearts of those who
confess and die for the true faith in the unity of charity take precedence
of each other in different points, the Lord Himself will know, by the
hidden and wondrous dispensation of whose grace the thief hanging on the
cross once for all confesses Him, and is sent on the selfsame day to
paradise,(4) while Peter, the follower of our Lord, denies Him thrice, and
has his crown postponed:(5) for us it were rash to form a judgment from the
evidence. But if any one were now found compelling a man to be circumcised
after the Jewish fashion, as a necessary preliminary for baptism, this
would meet with much more general repudiation by mankind, than if a man
should be compelled to be baptized again. Wherefore, if Peter, on doing
this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the
bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more
readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a
single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has
been established by the statutes of the universal Church? For this same
Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to remain in
the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on this point, as
is shown by his own opening address at the beginning of the very Council
which is quoted by the Donatists. For it is as follows:
CHAP. 2.--3. "When, on the calends of September, very many bishops from
the provinces of Africa,(6) Numidia, and Mauritania, with their presbyters
and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great part of the laity also
being present; and when the letter addressed by Jubaianus(7) to Cyprian, as
also the answer of Cyprian to Jubaianus, on the subject of baptizing
heretics, had been read, Cyprian said: 'Ye have heard, most beloved
colleagues, what Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop, has written to me,
consulting my moderate ability concerning the unlawful and profane baptism
of heretics, and what answer I gave him,--giving a judgment which we have
once and again and often given, that heretics coming to the Church ought to
be baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another letter
of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably to his
sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only
expressed his assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that he had
received instruction. It remains that we severally declare our opinion on
this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a
bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a
necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his
liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no
more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must
all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power
both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our
acts therein.'"
CHAP. 3.--4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise
themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. Ye mad
Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the
holy Church, that ye may receive health therein, what have ye to say in
answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of
Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian
for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the
Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture,
both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and
that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of
the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation
whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all
the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since
the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything
contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of
some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the
weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the
authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are
held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all
possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed
for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the
earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some
actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed,
and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind
of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance,
without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic
peace, and Christian charity?
CHAP. 4.--5. Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only
increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to use
the words, "Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we
should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account
as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and
colleagues, for the common health and weal,"(1) --he, I say, abundantly
shows that he was most willing to correct his own opinion, if any one
should prove to him that it is as certain that the baptism of Christ can be
given by those who have strayed from the fold, as that it could not he lost
when they strayed; on which subject we have already said much. Nor should
we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported
by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would
unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had
been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary
Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself
quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much
more readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have
yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been thus
brought to light? For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would have been
most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person who could prove
to him the truth; and perhaps he even did so,(2) though we have no
knowledge of the fact. For it was neither possible that all the proceedings
which took place between the bishops at that time should have been
committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with all that was so committed.
For how could a matter which was involved in such mists of disputation even
have been brought to the full illumination and authoritative decision of a
plenary Council, had it not first been known to be discussed for some
considerable time in the various districts of the world, with many
discussions and comparisons of tile views of the bishop on every side? But
this is one effect of the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points
are long under investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of
arriving at the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of
brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth; yet
the bond of unity remains, lest in tile part that is cut away there should
be found the incurable wound of deadly error.
CHAP. 5.--6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly revealed
to the more learned, that their patient and humble charity, from which
proceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the way in which they
preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on matters of comparative
obscurity, or in the temper with which they receive the truth, when they
learn that it has been declared to be contrary to what they thought. i And
of these two we have a manifestation in the blessed Cyprian of the one,
viz., of the way in which he preserved unity with those from whom he
differed in opinion. For he says, 'Judging no one nor depriving any one of
the right of communion if he differ from us."(1) And the other, viz., in
what temper he could receive the truth when found to be different from what
he thought it, though his letters are silent on the point, is yet
proclaimed by his merits. If there is no letter extant to prove it, it is
witnessed by his crown of martyrdom; if the Council of bishops declare it
not, it is declared by the host of angels. For it is no small proof of a
most peaceful soul, that he won the crown of martyrdom in that unity from
which he would not separate, even though he differed from it. For we are
but men; and it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should
hold views at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too
great love for our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters, even to
the sacrilege of dividing the communion of the Church, and of rounding
heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil But never in any
point to entertain an opinion at variance with the truth is perfection
found only in the angels. Since then we are men, yet forasmuch as in hope
we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the resurrections,(2) at any
rate, so long as we are wanting in the perfection of angels, let us at
least be without the presumption of the devil. Accordingly the apostle
says, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man."(3)
It is therefore part of man's nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore he
says in another place, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus
minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even
this unto you."(4) But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it
in this life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way of
peace, and stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those who have
not known the way of peace,(5) or for some other cause have broken the bond
of unity. And so, when the apostle said, "And if in anything ye be
otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you," lest they should
think that besides the way of peace their own wrong views might be revealed
to them, he immediately added, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already
attained, let us walk by the same rule."(6) And Cyprian, walking by this
rule, by the most persistent tolerance, not simply by the shedding of his
blood, but because it was shed in unity (for if he gave his body to be
burned, and had not charity, it would profit him nothing(7)), came by the
confession of martyrdom to the light of the angels, and if not before, at
least then, acknowledged the revelation of the truth on that point on
which, while yet in error, he did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong
opinion to the bond of unity.
CHAP, 6.--7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to this? If
our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently in the
time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church, till God
revealed to them the truth of the point on which they were in error, why
then have ye by your sacrilegious separation broken the bond of peace? But
if yours is the true opinion about baptism, Cyprian and the others, in
conjunction with whom ye set forth that he held such a Council, remained in
unity with those who thought otherwise; why, therefore, have ye broken the
bond of peace? Choose which alternative ye will, ye are compelled to
pronounce an opinion against your schism. Answer me, wherefore have ye
separated yourselves? Wherefore have ye erected an altar in opposition to
the whole world? Wherefore do ye not communicate with the Churches to which
apostolic epistles have been sent, which you yourselves read and
acknowledge, in accordance with whose tenor you say that you order your
lives? Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? I suppose in
order that ye might not perish by communion with wicked men. How then was
it that Cyprian, and so many of his colleagues, did not perish? For though
they believed that heretics and schismatics did not possess baptism, yet
they chose rather to hold communion with them when they had been received
into the Church without baptism, although they believed that their flagrant
and sacrilegious sins were yet upon their heads, than to be separated from
the unity of the Church, according to the words of Cyprian, "Judging no
one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us."
8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot but
perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian. Whence then
sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where was he baptized,
where was he ordained, since the Church had been already destroyed by the
contagion of communion with the wicked? But if the Church still existed,
the wicked could do no harm to the good in one communion with them.
Wherefore did ye separate yourselves? Behold, I see in unity Cyprian and
others, his colleagues, who, on holding a council, decided that those who
have been baptized without the communion of the Church have no true
baptism, and that therefore it must be given them when they join the
Church. But again, behold I see in the same unity that certain men think
differently in this matter, and that, recognizing in those who come from
heretics and schismatics the baptism of Christ, they do not venture to
baptize them afresh. All of these catholic unity embraces in her motherly
breast, bearing each other's burdens by turns, and endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,(1) till God should reveal to one
or other of them any error in their views. If the one party held the truth,
were they infected by the others, or no? If the others held the truth, were
they infected by the first, or no? Choose which ye will. If there was
contamination, the Church even then ceased to exist; answer me, therefore,
whence came ye forth hither? But if the Church remained, the good are in no
wise contaminated by the bad in such communion; answer me, therefore, why
did ye break the bond?
9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism,
bring no infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up the
sacred books?(2) For that there were traditors of your number is proved by
the clearest testimony of history. And if you had then brought true
evidence against those whom you were accusing, you would have proved your
cause before the unity of the whole world, so that you would have been
retained whilst they were shut out. And if you endeavored to do this, and
did not succeed, the world is not to blame, which trusted the judges of the
Church rather than the beaten parties in the suit; whilst, if you would not
urge your suit, the world again is not to blame, which could not condemn
men without their cause being heard. Why, then, did you separate yourselves
from the innocent? You cannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But this
I pass over. But so much I say, that if the traditors could have defiled
you, who were not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary, you were
beaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and heretics, received
into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism, have defiled Cyprian.
Yet he did not separate himself. And inasmuch as the Church continued to
exist, it is clear that it could not be defiled. Wherefore, then, did you
separate yourselves, I do not say from the innocent, as the facts proved
them, but from the traditors, as they were never proved to be? Are the sins
of traditors, as I began to say, heavier than those of schismatics? Let us
not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will
and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is
light;" but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture,
as out of the Lord's treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see
which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but
read the weights as declared by the Lord. At the time when the Lord showed,
by the example of recent punishment, that there was need to guard against
the sins of olden days, and an idol was made and worshipped, and the
prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a scoffing king, and schism was
attempted, the idolatry was punished with the sword,(3) the burning of the
book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land,(4) schism by the
earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism while the
rest were consumed with fire from heaven.(5) Who will now doubt that that
was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming
from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could not
defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted but
supposed betrayers of the sacred books?(6) For if they had not only given
up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own
hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed
schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the lighter
punishment, not at man's discretion, but by the judgment of God.
CHAP. 7.--10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If there is
any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find no possible
answer to these arguments. "We are not left," they say, "so utterly without
resource, but that we can still answer, It is our will. 'Who art thou that
judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or
falleth.'"(7) They do not understand that this was said to men who were
wishing to judge, not of open facts, but of the hearts of other men. For
how does the apostle himself come to say so much about the sins of schisms
and heresies? Or how comes that verse in the Psalms, "If of a truth ye love
justice, judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?"(1) But why does the Lord
Himself say, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment,"(2) if we may not judge any man? Lastly, why, in the case of
those traditors, whom they have judged unrighteously, have they themselves
ventured to pass any judgments at all on another man's servants? To their
own master they were standing or falling. Or why, in the case of the recent
followers of Maximianus, have they not hesitated to bring forward the
judgment delivered with the infallible voice, as they aver, of a plenary
Council, in such terms as to compare them with those first schismatics whom
the earth swallowed up alive? And yet some of them, as they cannot deny,
they either condemned though innocent, or received back again in their
guilt. But when a truth is urged which they cannot gainsay, they mutter a
truly wholesome murmuring: "It is our will: 'Who art thou that judgest
another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.'" But when
a weak sheep is espied in the desert, and the pastor who should reclaim it
to the fold is nowhere to be seen, then there is setting of teeth, and
breaking of the weak neck: "Thou wouldst be a good man, wert thou not a
traditor. Consult the welfare of thy soul; be a Christian." What
unconscionable madness! When it is said to a Christian, "Be a Christian,"
what other lesson is taught, save a denial that he is a Christian? Was it
not the same lesson which those persecutors of the Christians wished to
teach, by resisting whom the crown of martyrdom was gained? Or must we even
look on crime as lighter when committed with threatening of the sword than
with treachery of the tongue?
11. Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in
sheep's clothing,(3) think that the letters of the blessed Cyprian are in
your favor. Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian, or did it not?
If it did, the Church perished from that instant, and there remained no
source from which ye might spring. If it did not, then by what offense on
the part of others can the guiltless possibly be defiled, if the sacrilege
of schism cannot defile them? Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves?
Wherefore, while shunning the lighter offenses, which are inventions of
your own, have ye committed the heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of
schism? Will ye now perchance confess that those men were no longer
schismatics or heretics who had been baptized without the communion of the
Church, or in some heresy or schism, because by coming over to the Church,
and renouncing their former errors, they had ceased to be what formerly
they were? How then was it, that though they were not baptized, their sins
remained not on their heads? Was it that the baptism was Christ's, but that
it could not profit them without the communion of the Church; yet when they
came over, and, renouncing their past error, were received into the
communion of the Church by the laying on of hands, then, being now rooted
and founded in charity, without which all other things are profitless, they
began to receive profit for the remission of sins and the sanctification of
their lives from that sacrament, which, while without the pale of the
Church, they possessed in vain?
12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian
in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian
for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as
yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome
custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given,
even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part,
but did not meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose,
from apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have
been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved
throughout tile whole Church, though they are not found either in their
letters, or in the Councils of their successors),--this most wholesome
custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called
amended by his predecessor Agrippinus.(4) But, according to the teaching
which springs from a more careful investigation into the truth, which,
after great doubt and fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a
plenary Council, we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted
than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus. Accordingly, when so
great a question forced itself upon him, and it was difficult to decide
tile point, whether remission of sins and man's spiritual regeneration
could take place among heretics or schismatics, and the authority of
Agrippinus was there to guide him, with that of some few men who shared in
his misapprehension of this question, having preferred attempting something
new to maintaining a custom which they did not understand how to defend;
under these circumstances considerations of probability forced themselves
into the eyes of his sold, and barred the way to the thorough investigation
of the truth.
CHAP. 8.--13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any other
motive in the free expression and earlier utterance of what he thought in
opposition to the custom of the Church, save that he should thankfully
receive any one that could be found with a fuller revelation of the truth,
and that he should show forth a pattern for imitation, not only of
diligence in teaching, but also of modesty in learning; but that, if no one
should be found to bring forward any argument by which those considerations
of probability should be refuted, then he should abide by his opinion, with
the full consciousness that he had neither concealed what he conceived to
be the truth, nor violated the unity which he loved. For so he understood
the words of the apostle: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the
other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
first hold his peace."(1) "In which passage he has taught and shown, that
many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that we ought
not each to strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held,
but if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly
embrace it."(2) At any rate, in these words he not only advised those to
agree with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any who could to
bring forward arguments by which the maintenance of the former custom might
rather be established; that if they should be of such a nature as not to
admit of refutation, he might show in his own person with what sincerity,
he said "that we ought not each to strive pertinaciously for what he has
once imbibed and held, but that, if anything has appeared better and more
useful, he should willingly embrace it."(2) But inasmuch as none appeared,
except such as simply urged the custom against him, and the arguments which
they produced in its favor were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul
like his, this mighty reasoner was not content to give up his opinions,
which, though they were not true, as he was himself unable to see, were at
any rate not confuted, in favor of a custom which had truth on its side,
but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not his predecessor
Agrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout Africa, first tempted
him to desert this custom, even by the decision of a Council, he certainly
would not have dared to argue against it. But, amid the perplexities of so
obscure a question, and seeing everywhere around him a strong universal
custom, he would rather have put restraint upon himself by prayer and
stretching forth his mind towards God, so as to have perceived or taught
that for truth which was afterwards decided by a plenary Council. But when
he had found relief amid his weariness in the authority of the former
Council(3) which was held by Agrippinus, he preferred maintaining what was
in a manner the discovery of his predecessors, to expending further toil in
investigation. For, at the end of his letter to Quintus, he thus shows how
he has sought repose, if one may use the expression, for his weariness, in
what might be termed the resting-place of authority.(4)
CHAP. 9.--14. "This, moreover," says he, "Agrippinus, a man of
excellent memory, with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time
governed the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia, did
establish and, after the investigation of a mutual Council had weighed it,
confirm; whose sentence, being both religious and legitimate and salutary
in accordance with the Catholic faith and Church, we also have
followed."(5) By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more ready
he would have been to bear his testimony, had any Council been held to
discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or at least
represented our brethren beyond the sea.(6) But such a Council had not yet
been held, because the whole world was bound together by the powerful bond
of custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose to those who wished to
introduce what was new, because they could not comprehend the truth.
Afterwards, however, while the question became matter for discussion and
investigation amongst many on either side, the new practice was not only
invented, but even submitted to the authority and power of a plenary
Council,--after the martyrdom of Cyprian, it is true, but before we were
born.(7) But that this was indeed the custom of the Church, which
afterwards was confirmed by a plenary Council, in which the truth was
brought to light, and many difficulties cleared away, is plain enough from
the words of the blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus,
which was quoted as being read in the Council.(7) For he says, "But some
one asks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming out of
heresy to the Church, have already been admitted without baptism?" where
certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually done, though he would
have wished it otherwise; and in the very fact of his quoting the Council
of Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the custom of the Church was
different. Nor indeed was it requisite that he should seek to establish the
practice by this Council, if it was already sanctioned by custom; and in
the Council itself some of the speakers expressly declare, in giving their
opinion, that they went against the custom of the Church in deciding what
they thought was right. Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one
point, which surely none can fail to see, that if the authority of Cyprian
is to be followed, it is to be followed rather in maintaining unity than in
altering the custom of the Church; but if respect is paid to his Council,
it must at any rate yield place to the later Council of the universal
Church, of which he rejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates
that they should all follow his example in upholding the coherence of the
whole body. For both later Councils are preferred among later generations
to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked
upon as superior to the parts.
CHAP. 10.--15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown that
the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of the Church
those who had been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held communion with
those who did admit them, according to his express declaration, "Judging no
one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from
us?"(2) If he was polluted by communion with persons of this kind, why do
they follow his authority in the question of baptism? But if he was not
polluted by communion with them, why do they not follow his example in
maintaining unity? Have they anything to urge in their defense except the
plea, "We choose to have it so?" What other answer have any sinful or
wicked men to the discourse of truth or justice,--the voluptuous, for
instance, the drunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any way,
thieves, robbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers, idolaters,--what other
answer can they make when convicted by the voice of truth, except "I choose
to do it;" "It is my pleasure so"? And if they have in them a tinge of
Christianity, they say further, "Who art thou that judgest another man's
servant?"(3) Yet these have so much more remains of modesty, that when, in
accordance with divine and human law, they meet with punishment for their
abandoned life and deeds, they do not style themselves martyrs; while the
Donatists wish at once to lead a sacrilegious life and enjoy a blameless
reputation, to suffer no punishment for their wicked deeds, and to gain a
martyr's glory in their just punishment. As if they were not experiencing
the greater mercy and patience of God, in proportion as "executing His
judgments upon them by little and little, He giveth them place of
repentance,"(4) and ceases not to redouble His scourgings in this life;
that, considering what they suffer, and why they suffer it, they may in
time grow wise; and that those who have received the baptism of the party
of Maximianus in order to preserve the unity of Donatus, may the more
readily embrace the baptism of the whole world in order to preserve the
peace of Christ; that they may be restored to the root, may be reconciled
to the unity of the Church, may see that they have nothing left for them to
say, though something yet remains for them to do; that for their former
deeds the sacrifice of loving-kindness may be offered to a long-suffering
God, whose unity they have broken by their wicked sin, on whose sacraments
they have inflicted such a lasting wrong. For "the Lord is merciful and
gracious, slow to anger, plenteous in mercy and truth."(5) Let them embrace
His mercy and long-suffering in this life, and fear His truth in the next.
For He willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn
from his way and live;(6) because He bends His judgment against the wrongs
that have been inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.
CHAP. 9.--16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies,
because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent, because we
fear to shrink from pressing our point with all the force that lies within
our power, because we obey the apostle when he says, "Preach the word; be
instant in season out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort."(1) But, as the
gospel says, "They love the praise of men more than the praise of God;" and
while they fear to incur blame for a time. they do not fear to incur
damnation for ever. They see, too, themselves what wrong they are doing;
they see that they have no answer which they can make, but they overspread
the inexperienced with mists, whilst they themselves are being swallowed up
alive,--that is, are perishing knowingly and willfully. They see that men
are amazed, and look with abhorrence on the fact that they have divided
themselves into many schisms, especially in Carthage,(3) the capital and
most noted city of all Africa; they have endeavored to patch up the
disgrace of their rags. Thinking that they could annihilate the followers
of Maximianus, they pressed heavily on them through the agency of Optatus
the Gildonian;(4) they inflicted on them many wrongs amid the cruellest of
persecutions. Then they received back some, thinking that all could be
converted under the influence of the same terror; but they were unwilling
to do those whom they received the wrong of baptizing afresh those who had
been baptized by them in their schism, or rather of causing them to be
baptized again within their communion by the very same men by whom they had
been baptized outside, and thus they at once made an exception to their own
impious custom. They feel how wickedly they are acting in assailing the
baptism of the whole world, when they have received the baptism of the
followers of Maximianus. But they fear those whom they have themselves
rebaptized, lest they should receive no mercy from them, when they have
shown it to others; lest these should call them to account for their souls
when they have ceased to destroy those of other men.
CHAP. 12.--17. What answer they can give about the followers of
Maximianus whom they have received, they cannot divine. If they say, "Those
we received were innocent," the answer is obvious, "Then you had condemned
the innocent." If they say, did it in ignorance," then you judged rashly
(just as you passed a rash judgment on the traditors), and your declaration
was false that "you must know that they were condemned by the truthful
voice of a plenary Council."(5) For indeed the innocent could never be
condemned by a voice of truth. If they say, "We did not condemn them," it
is only necessary to cite the Council, to cite the names of bishops and
states alike. If they say, "The Council itself is none of ours," then we
cite the records of the proconsular province, where more than once they
quoted the same Council to justify the exclusion of the followers of
Maximianus from the basilicas, and to confound them by the din of the
judges and the force of their allies. If they say that Felicianus of Musti,
and Praetextatus of Assavae, whom they afterwards received, were not of the
party of Maximianus, then we cite the records in which they demanded, in
the courts of law, that these persons should be excluded from the Council
which they held against the party of Maximianus. If they say, "They were
received for the sake peace," our answer is, "Why then do ye not
acknowledge the only true and full peace? Who urged you, who compelled you
to receive a schismatic whom you had condemned, to preserve the peace of
Donatus, and to condemn the world unheard, in violation of the peace of
Christ?" Truth hems them in on every side. They see that there is no answer
left for them to make, and they think that there is nothing left for them
to do; they cannot find out what to say. They are not allowed to be silent.
They had rather strive with perverse utterance against truth, than be
restored to peace by a confession of their faults.
CHAP. 13.--18. But who can fail to understand what they may be saying
in their hearts? "What then are we to do," say they, "with those whom we
have already rebaptized?" Return with them to the Church. Bring those whom
you have wounded to be healed by the medicine of peace: bring those whom
you have slain to be brought to life again by the life of charity.
Brotherly union has great power in propitiating God. "If two of you," says
our Lord, "shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask,
it shall be done for them."(6) If for two men who agree, how much more for
two communities? Let us throw ourselves together on our knees before the
Lord Do you share with us our unity; let us share with you your contrition
and let charity cover the multitude of sins. Seek counsel from the blessed
Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of
unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those
who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were
baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was
yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they
might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in
pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in
writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What then will become
of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were
admitted without baptism?' The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon,
and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of
simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep."(2)
CHAP. 14.--19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all, or to
be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed, which is more
repugnant and abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I have recourse to that
divine balance, in which the weight of things is determined, not by man's
feelings, but by the authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on
either side. For He said to Peter, "He who is washed has no need of washing
a second time;"(3) and to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(4) What is the
purport of the more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult
for men like us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any
one may see what a difference there is between "has no need of washing,"
and "cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." The Church, lastly, herself
holds as her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit a man to her
altar at all; but since it is allowed that one who has been rebaptized may
be admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that his baptism is
considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian thought that those whom he
considered to be unbaptized yet had some share in pardon, in virtue of the
bond of unity, the Lord has power to be reconciled even to the rebaptized
by means of the simple bond of unity and peace, and by this same
compensating power of peace to mitigate His displeasure against those by
whom they were rebaptized, and to pardon all the errors which they had
committed while in error, on their offering the sacrifice of charity, which
covereth the multitude of sins; so that He looks not to the number of those
who have been wounded by their separation, but to the greater number who
have been delivered from bondage by their return. For in the same bond of
peace in which Cyprian conceived that, through the mercy of God, those whom
he considered to have been admitted to the Church without baptism, were yet
not severed from the gifts of the Church, we also believe that through the
same mercy of God the rebaptized can earn their pardon at His hands.
CHAP. 15.--20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the
blessed Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her
bosom either some that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized, either
the one section or the other must have won their salvation only by the
force of simple unity. For if those who came over from the heretics were
not baptized, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly admitted into the
Church; and yet he himself did not despair of their obtaining pardon from
the mercy of God in virtue of the unity of the Church. So again, if they
were already baptized, it was not right to rebaptize them. What, therefore,
was there to aid the other section, save the same charity that delighted in
unity, so that what was hidden from man's weakness, in the consideration of
the sacrament, might not be reckoned, by the mercy of God, as a fault in
those who we're lovers of peace? Why, then, while ye fear those whom ye
have rebaptized, do ye grudge yourselves and them the entrance to
salvation? There was at one time a doubt upon the subject of baptism; those
who held different opinions yet remained in unity. In course of time, owing
to the certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away. The
question which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation from the
Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once more within the
fold. Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement, which Cyprian did not
desert while yet disturbed with doubt; or if now you are dissatisfied with
the example of Cyprian, who held communion with those who were received
with the baptism of heretics, declaring openly that we should "neither
judge any one, nor deprive any one of the right of communion if he differ
from us,"(5) whither are ye going, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You
are bound to fly even from yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the
position where he abode. But if neither his own sins nor those of others
could stand in his way, on account of the abundance of his charity and his
love of brotherly kindness and the bond of peace, do you return to us,
where you will find much less hindrance in the way of either us or you from
the fictions which your party have invented.
BOOK III.
AUGUSTIN UNDERTAKES THE REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE DERIVED
FROM THE EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO JUBAIANUS, TO GIVE COLOR TO THE VIEW THAT
THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST COULD NOT BE CONFERRED BY HERETICS.
CHAP. 1.--1. I think that it may now be considered clear to every one,
that the authority of the blessed Cyprian for the maintenance of the bond
of peace, and the avoiding of any violation of that most wholesome charity
which preserves unity in the Church, may be urged on our side rather than
on the side of the Donatists. For if they have chosen to act upon his
example in rebaptizing Catholics, because he thought that heretics ought to
be baptized on joining the Catholic Church, shall not we rather follow his
example, whereby he laid down a manifest rule that one ought in no wise, by
the establishment of a separate communion, to secede from the Catholic
communion, that is, from the body of Christians dispersed throughout the
world, even on the admission of evil and sacrilegious men, since he was
unwilling even to remove from the right of communion those whom he
considered to have received sacrilegious men without baptism into the
Catholic communion, saying, "Judging no one, nor depriving any of the right
of communion if he differ from us?"
CHAP. 2.--2. Nevertheless, I see what may still be required of me,
viz., that I should answer those plausible arguments, by which, in even
earlier times, Agrippinus, or Cyprian himself, or those in Africa who
agreed with them, or any others in far distant lands beyond the sea, were
moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even regionary
Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think that they ought
to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the ancient custom of the
Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the most unanimous resolution
of the Catholic world in order that an error which had begun to creep into
the minds of some men, through discussions of this kind, might be cured by
the more powerful truth and universal healing power of unity coming on the
side of safety. And so they may see with what security I approach this
discourse. If I am unable to gain my point, and show how those arguments
may be refuted which they bring forward from the Council and the epistles
of Cyprian, to the effect that Christs's baptism may not be given by the
hands of heretics, I shall still remain safely in the Church, in whose
communion Cyprian himself remained with those who differed from him.
3. But if they say that the Catholic Church existed then, because there
were a few, or, if they prefer it, even a considerable number, who denied
the validity of any baptism conferred in an heretical body, and baptized
all who came from thence, what then? Did the Church not exist at all before
Agrippinus, with whom that new kind of system began, at variance with all
previous custom? Or how, again after the time of Agrippinus, when, unless
there had been a return to the primitive custom, there would have been no
need for Cyprian to set on foot another Council? Was there no Church then,
because such a custom as this prevailed everywhere, that the baptism of
Christ should be considered nothing but the baptism of Christ, even though
it were proved to have been conferred in a body of heretics or schismatics?
But if the Church existed even then, and had not perished through a breach
of its continuity, but was, on the contrary, holding its ground, and
receiving increase in every nation, surely it is the safest plan to abide
by this same custom, which then embraced good and bad alike in unity. But
if there was then no Church in existence, because sacrilegious heretics
were received without baptism, and this prevailed by universal custom,
whence has Donatus made his appearance? From what land did he spring? or
from what sea did he emerge? or from what sky did he fall? And so we, as I
had begun to say, are safe in the communion of that Church, throughout the
whole extent of which the custom now prevails, which prevailed in like
manner through its whole extent before the time of Agrippinus, and in the
interval between Agrippinus and Cyprian, and whose unity neither Agrippinus
nor Cyprian ever deserted, nor those who agreed with them, although they
entertained different views from the rest of their brethren--all of them
remaining in the same communion of unity with the very men from whom they
differed in opinion. But let the Donatists themselves consider what their
true position is, if they neither can say whence they derived their origin,
if the Church had already been destroyed by the plague-spot of communion
with heretics and schismatics received into her bosom without baptism; nor
again agree with Cyprian himself, for he declared that he remained in
communion with those who received heretics and schismatics, and so also
with those who were received as well: while they have separated themselves
from the communion of the whole world, on account of the charge of having
delivered up the sacred books, which they brought against the men whom they
maligned in Africa, but failed to convict when brought to trial beyond the
sea; although, even had the crimes which they alleged been true, they were
much less heinous than the sins of heresy and schism; and yet these could
not defile Cyprian in the persons of those who came from them without
baptism, as he conceived, and were admitted without baptism into the
Catholic communion. Nor, in the very point in which they say that they
imitate Cyprian, can they find any answer to make about acknowledging the
baptism of the followers of Maximianus, together with those whom, though
they belonged to the party that they had first condemned in their own
plenary Council, and then gone on to prosecute even at the tribunal of the
secular power, they yet received back into their communion, in the
episcopate of the very same bishop under whom they had been condemned.
Wherefore, if the communion of wicked men destroyed the Church in the time
of Cyprian, they have no source from which they can derive their own
communion; and if the Church was not destroyed, they have no excuse for
their separation from it. Moreover, they are neither following the example
of Cyprian, since they have burst the bond of unity, nor abiding by their
own Council, since they have recognized the baptism of the followers of
Maximianus.
CHAP. 3.--4. Let us therefore, seeing that we adhere to the example of
Cyprian, go on now to consider Cyprian's Council. What says Cyprian? "Ye
have heard," he says, "most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our fellow-
bishop has written to me, consulting my moderate ability concerning the
unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what answer I gave him,--
giving a judgment which we have once and again and often given, that
heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized and sanctified with the
baptism of the Church. Another letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read
to you, in which, agreeably to his sincere and religious devotion, in
answer to our epistle, he not only expressed his assent, but returned
thanks also, acknowledging that he had received instruction."(1) In these
words of the blessed Cyprian, we find that he had been consulted by
Jubaianus, and what answer he had given to his questions, and how Jubaianus
acknowledged with gratitude that he had received instruction. Ought we then
to be thought unreasonably persistent if we desire to consider this same
epistle by which Jubaianus was convinced? For till such time as we are also
convinced (if there are any arguments of truth whereby this can be done),
Cyprian himself has established our security by the right of Catholic
communion.
5. For he goes on to say: "It remains that we severally declare our
opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the
right of communion if he differ from us."(2) He allows me, therefore,
without losing the right of communion, not only to continue inquiring into
the truth, but even to hold opinions differing from his own. "For no one of
us," he says, "setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical
terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying." What could be more
kind? what more humble? Surely there is here no authority restraining us
from inquiry into what is truth. "Inasmuch as every bishop," he says, "in
the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own
judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge
another,"--that is, I suppose, in those questions which have not yet been
brought to perfect clearness of solution; for he knew what a deep question
about the sacrament was then occupying the whole Church with every kind of
disputation, and gave free liberty of inquiry to every man, that the truth
might be made known by investigation. For he was surely not uttering what
was false, and trying to catch his simpler colleagues in their speech, so
that, when they should have betrayed that they held opinions at variance
with his, he might then propose, in violation of his promise, that they
should be excommunicated. Far be it from a soul so holy to entertain such
accursed treachery; indeed, they who hold such a view about such a man,
thinking that it conduces to his praise, do but show that it would be in
accordance with their own nature. I for my part will in no wise believe
that Cyprian, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic martyr, whose greatness only
made him proportionately humble in all things, so as to find favor before
the Lord,(1) should ever, especially in the sacred Council of his
colleagues, have uttered with his mouth what was not echoed in his heart,
especially as he further adds, "But we must all await the judgment of our
Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the
government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein."(2) When,
then, he called to their remembrance so solemn a judgment, hoping to hear
the truth from his colleagues, would he first set them the example of
lying? May God avert such madness from every Christian man, and how much
more from Cyprian! We have therefore the free liberty of inquiry granted to
us by the most moderate and most truthful speech of Cyprian.
CHAP. 4.--6. Next his colleagues proceed to deliver their several
opinions. But first they listened to the letter written to Jubaianus; for
it was read, as was mentioned in the preamble. Let it therefore be read
among ourselves also, that we too, with the help of God, may discover from
it What we ought to think. "What!" I think I hear some one saying, "do you
proceed to tell us what Cyprian wrote to Jubaianus?" I have read the
letter, I confess, and should certainly have been a convert to his views,
had I not been induced to consider the matter more carefully by the vast
weight of authority, originating in those whom the Church, distributed
throughout the world amid so many nations, of Latins, Greeks, barbarians,
not to mention the Jewish race itself, has been able to produce,--that same
Church which gave birth to Cyprian himself,--men whom I could in no wise
bring myself to think had been unwilling without reason to hold this view,-
-not because it was impossible that in so difficult a question the opinion
of one or of a few might not have been more near the truth than that of
more, but because one must not lightly, without full consideration and
investigation of the matter to the best of his abilities, decide in favor
of a single individual, or even of a few, against the decision of so very
many men of the same religion and communion, all endowed with great talent
and abundant learning. And so how much was suggested to me on more diligent
inquiry, even by the letter of Cyprian himself, in favor of the view which
is now held by the Catholic Church, that the baptism of Christ is to be
recognized and approved, not by the standard of their merits by whom it is
administered, but by His alone of whom it is said, "The same is He which
baptizeth,"(3) will be shown naturally in the course of our argument. Let
us therefore suppose that the letter which was written by Cyprian to
Jubaianus has been read among us, as it was read in the Council.(4) And I
would have every one read it who means to read what I am going to say, lest
he might possibly think that I have suppressed some things of consequence.
For it would take too much time, and be irrelevant to the elucidation of
the matter in hand, were we at this moment to quote all the words of this
epistle.
CHAP. 5.--7. But if any one should ask what I hold in the meantime,
while discussing this question, I answer that, in the first place, the
letter of Cyprian suggested to me what I should hold till I should see
clearly the nature of the question which next begins to be discussed. For
Cyprian himself says: "But some will say, 'What then will become of those
who in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without
baptism?'"(5) Whether they were really without baptism, or whether they
were admitted because those who admitted them conceived that they had
partaken of baptism, is a matter for our future consideration. At any rate,
Cyprian himself shows plainly enough what was the ordinary custom of the
Church, when he says that in past time those who came to the Church from
heresy were admitted without baptism.
8. For in the Council itself Castus of Sicca says: "He who, despising
truth, presumes to follow custom, is either envious or evil-disposed
towards the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or is ungrateful
towards God, by whose inspiration His Church is instructed."(6) Whether the
truth had been revealed, we shall investigate hereafter; at any rate, he
acknowledges that the custom of the Church was different.
CHAP. 6.--9. Libosus also of Vaga says: "The Lord says in the gospel,
'I am the Truth.'(1) He does not say, 'I am custom.' Therefore, when the
truth is made manifest, custom must give way to truth."(2) Clearly, no one
could doubt that custom must give way to truth where it is made manifest.
But we shall see presently about the manifestation of the truth. Meanwhile
he also makes it clear that custom was on the other side.
CHAP. 7.--10. Zosimus also of Tharassa said: "When a revelation of the
truth has been made, error must give way to truth; for even Peter, who at
the first circumcised, afterwards gave way to Paul when he declared the
truth."(3) He indeed chose to say error, not custom; but in saying "for
even Peter, who at the first circumcised, afterwards gave way to Paul when
he declared the truth," he shows plainly enough that there was a custom
also on the subject of baptism at variance with his views. At the same
time, also, he warns us that it was not impossible that Cyprian might have
held an opinion about baptism at variance with that required by the truth,
as held by the Church both before and after him, if even Peter could hold a
view at variance with the truth as taught us by the Apostle Paul.(4)
CHAP. 8.--11. Likewise Felix of Buslacene said: "In admitting heretics
without the baptism of the Church, let no one prefer custom to reason and
truth; because reason and truth always prevail to the exclusion of
custom."(5) Nothing could be better, if it be reason, and if it be truth;
but this we shall see presently. Meanwhile, it is clear from the words of
this man also that the custom was the other way.
CHAP. 9.--12. Likewise Honoratus of Tucca(6) said: "Since Christ is the
Truth, we ought to follow truth rather than custom."(7) By all these
declarations it is proved that we are not excluded from the communion of
the Church, till it shall have been clearly shown what is the nature of the
truth, which they say must be preferred to our custom. But if the truth has
made it clear that the very regulation ought to be maintained which the
said custom had prescribed, then it is evident both that this custom was
not established or confirmed in vain, and also that, in consequence of the
discussions in question, the most wholesome observance of so great a
sacrament, which could never, indeed, have been changed in the Catholic
Church, was even more watch-fully guarded with the most scrupulous caution,
when it had received the further corroboration of Councils.
CHAP. 10.--13. Therefore Cyprian writes to Jubaianus as follows,
"concerning the baptism of heretics, who, being placed without, and set
down out of the Church," seem to him to "claim to themselves a matter over
which they have neither right nor power. Which we," he says, "cannot
account valid or lawful, since it is clear that among them it is
unlawful."(8) Neither, indeed, do we deny that a man who is baptized among
heretics, or in any schism outside the Church, derives no profit from it so
far as he is partner in the perverseness of the heretics and schismatics;
nor do we hold that those who baptize, although they confer the real true
sacrament of baptism, are yet acting rightly, in gathering adherents
outside the Church, and entertaining opinions contrary to the Church. But
it is one thing to be without a sacrament, another thing to be in
possession of it wrongly, and to usurp it unlawfully. Therefore they do not
cease to be sacraments of Christ and the Church, merely because they are
unlawfully used, not only by heretics, but by all kinds of wicked and
impious persons. These, indeed, ought to be corrected and punished, but the
sacraments should be acknowledged and revered.
14. Cyprian, indeed, says that on this subject not one, but two or more
Councils were held; always, however, in Africa. For indeed in one he
mentions that seventy-one bishops had been assembled,(8)--to all whose
authority we do not hesitate, with all due deference to Cyprian, to prefer
the authority, supported by many more bishops, of the whole Church spread
throughout the whole world, of which Cyprian himself rejoiced that he was
an inseparable member.
15. Nor is the water "profane and adulterous"(8) over which the name of
God is invoked, even though it be invoked by profane and adulterous
persons; because neither the creature itself of water, nor the name
invoked, is adulterous. But the baptism of Christ, consecrated by the words
of the gospel, is necessarily holy, however polluted and unclean its
ministers may be; because its inherent sanctity cannot be polluted, and the
divine excellence abides in its sacrament, whether to the salvation of
those who use it aright, or to the destruction of those who use it wrong.
Would you indeed maintain that, while the light of the sun or of a candle,
diffused through unclean places, contracts no foulness in itself therefrom,
yet the baptism of Christ can be defiled by the sins of any man, whatsoever
he may be? For if we turn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves,
which are to us the medium of the sacraments, every one must know that they
admit of corruption. But if we think on that which they convey to us, who
can fail to see that it is incorruptible, however much the men through
whose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded or punished for the
character of their lives?
CHAP. 11.--16. But Cyprian was right in not being moved by what
Jubaianus wrote, that "the followers of Novatian(1) rebaptize those who
come to them from the Catholic Church."(2) For, in the first place, it does
not follow that whatever heretics have done in a perverse spirit of
mimicry, Catholics are therefore to abstain from doing, because the:
heretics do the same. And again, the reasons are different for which
heretics and the Catholic Church ought respectively to abstain from
rebaptizing. For it would not be right for heretics to do so, even if it
were fitting in the Catholic Church; because their argument is, that among
the Catholics is wanting that which they themselves received whilst still
within the pale, and took away with them when they departed. Whereas the
reason why the Catholic Church should not administer again the baptism
which was given among heretics, is that it may not seem to decide that a
power which is Christ's alone belongs to its members, or to pronounce that
to be wanting in the heretics which they have received within her pale, and
certainly could not lose by straying outside. For thus much Cyprian
himself, with all the rest, established, that if any should return from
heresy to the Church, they should be received back, not by baptism, but by
the discipline of penitence; whence it is clear that they cannot be held to
lose by their secession what is not restored to them when they return. Nor
ought it for a moment to be said that, as their heresy is their own, as
their error is their own, as the sacrilege of disunion is their own, so
also the baptism is their own, which is really Christ's. Accordingly, while
the evils which are their own are corrected when they return, so in that
which is not theirs His presence should be recognised, from whom it is.
CHAP. 12.--17. But the blessed Cyprian shows that it was no new or sudden
thing that he decided, because the practice had already begun under
Agrippinus. "Many years," he says, "and much time has passed away since,
under Agrippinus of honored memory, a large assembly of bishops determined
this point." Accordingly, under Agrippinus, at any rate, the thing was new.
But I cannot understand what Cyprian means by saying, "And thenceforward to
the present day, so many thousand heretics in our provinces, having been
converted to our Church, showed no hesitation or dislike, but rather with
full consent of reason and will, have embraced the opportunity of the grace
of the layer of life and the baptism unto salvation,"(3) unless indeed he
says, "thenceforward to the present day," because from the time when they
were baptized in the Church, in accordance with the Council of Agrippinus,
no question of excommunication had arisen in the case of any of the
rebaptized. Yet if the custom of baptizing those who came over from
heretics remained in force from the time of Agrippinus to that of Cyprian,
why should new Councils have been held by Cyprian on this point? Why does
he say to this same Jubaianus that he is not doing anything new or sudden,
but only what had been established by Agrippinus? For why should Jubaianus
be disturbed by the question of novelty, so as to require to be satisfied
by the authority of Agrippinus, if this was the continuous practice of the
Church from Agrippinus till Cyprian? Why, lastly, did so many of his
colleagues urge that reason and truth must be preferred to custom, instead
of saying that those who wished to act otherwise were acting contrary to
truth and custom alike?
CHAP. 13.--18. But as regards the remission of sins, whether it is
granted through baptism at the hands of the heretics, I have already
expressed my opinion on this point in a former book;(4) but I will shortly
recapitulate it here. If remission of sins is there conferred by the
sacredness of baptism, the sins return again through obstinate perseverance
in heresy or schism; and therefore such men must needs return to the peace
of the Catholic Church, that they may cease to be heretics and schismatics,
and deserve that those sins which had returned on them should be cleansed
away by love working in the bond of unity. But if, although among heretics
and schismatics it be still the same baptism of Christ, it yet cannot work
remission of sins owing to this same foulness of discord and wickedness of
dissent, then the same baptism begins to be of avail for the remission of
sins when they come to the peace of the Church,--[not](1) that what has
been already truly remitted should not be retained; nor that heretical
baptism should be repudiated as belonging to a different religion, or as
being different from our own, so that a second baptism should be
administered; but that the very same baptism, which was working death by
reason of discord outside the Church, may work salvation by reason of the
peace within. It was, in fact, the same savor of which the apostle says,
"We are a sweet savor of Christ in every place;" and yet, says he, "both in
them that are saved and in them that perish. To the one we are the savor of
life unto life; and to the other the savor of death unto death."(2) And
although he used these words with reference to another subject, I have
applied them to this, that men may understand that what is good may not
only work life to those who use it aright, but also death to those who use
it wrong.
CHAP. 14.--19. Nor is it material, when we are considering the question
of the genuineness and holiness of the sacrament, "what the recipient of
the sacrament believes, and with what faith he is imbued." It is of the
very highest consequence as regards the entrance into salvation, but is
wholly immaterial as regards the question of the sacrament. For it is quite
possible that a man may be possessed of the genuine sacrament and a
corrupted faith, as it is possible that he may hold the words of the creed
in their integrity, and yet entertain an erroneous belief about the
Trinity, or the resurrection, or any other point. For it is no slight
matter, even within the Catholic Church itself, to hold a faith entirely
consistent with the truth about even God Himself, to say nothing of any of
His creatures. Is it then to be maintained, that if any one who has been
baptized within the Catholic Church itself should afterwards, in the course
of reading, or by listening to instruction, or by quiet argument, find out,
through God's own revelation, that he had before believed otherwise than he
ought, it is requisite that he should therefore be baptized afresh? But
what carnal and natural man is there who does not stray through the vain
conceits(3) of his own heart, and picture God's nature to himself to be
such as he has imagined out of his carnal sense, and differ from the true
conception of God as far as vanity from truth? Most truly, indeed, speaks
the apostle, filled with the light of truth: "The natural man," says he,
"receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."(4) And yet herein he was
speaking of men whom he himself shows to have been baptized. For he says to
them, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of
Paul?"(5) These men had therefore the sacrament of baptism; and yet,
inasmuch as their wisdom was of the flesh, what could they believe about
God otherwise than according to the perception of their flesh, according to
which "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God?" To
such he says: "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto
carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not
with meal: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye
able. For ye are yet carnal."(6) For such are carried about with every wind
of doctrine, of which kind he says, "That we be no more children, tossed to
and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."(7) It is then true
that, if these men shall have advanced even to the spiritual age of the
inner man, and in the integrity of understanding shall have learned how far
different from the requirements of the truth has been the belief which they
have been led by the fallacious character of their conceits to entertain of
God, they are therefore to be baptized again? For, on this principle, it
would be possible for a Catholic catechumen to light upon the writings of
some heretic, and, not having the knowledge requisite for discerning truth
from error, he might entertain some belief contrary to the Catholic faith,
yet not condemned by the words of the creed, just as, under color of the
same words, innumerable heretical errors have sprung up. Supposing, then,
that the catechumen was under the impression that he was studying the work
of some great and learned Catholic, and was baptized with that belief in
the Catholic Church, and by subsequent research should discover what he
ought to believe, so that, embracing the Catholic faith, he should reject
his former error, ought he, on confessing this, to be baptized again? Or
supposing that, before learning and confessing this for himself, he should
be found to entertain such an opinion, and should be taught what he ought
to reject and what he should believe, and it were to become clear that he
had held this false belief when he was baptized, ought he therefore to be
baptized again? Why should we maintain the contrary? Because the sanctity
of the sacrament, consecrated in the words of the gospel, remains upon him
in, its integrity, just as he received it from the hands of the minister,
although he, being firmly rooted in the vanity of his carnal mind
entertained a belief other than was right at the time when he was baptized.
Wherefore it is manifest that it is possible that, with defective faith,
the sacrament of baptism may yet remain without defect in any man; and
therefore all that is said about the diversity of the several heretics is
beside the question. For in each person that is to be corrected which is
found to be amiss by the man who undertakes his correction. That is to be
made whole which is unsound; that is to be given which is wanting, and,
above all, the peace of Christian charity, without which the rest is
profitless. Yet, as the rest is there, we must not administer it as though
it were wanting, only take care that its possession be to the profit, not
the hurt of him who has it, through the very bond of peace and excellence
of charity.
CHAP. 15.--20. Accordingly, if Marcion consecrated the sacrament of
baptism with the words of the gospel, "In the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"(1) the sacrament was complete, although
his faith expressed under the same words, seeing that he held opinions not
taught by the Catholic truth, was not complete, but Stained with the
falsity of fables.(2) For under these same words, "In the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not Marcion only, or
Valentinus, or Arius, or Eunomius, but the carnal babes of the Church
themselves (to whom the apostle said, "I could not speak unto you as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal"), if they could be individually asked for an
accurate exposition of their opinions, would probably show a diversity of
opinions as numerous as the persons who held them, "for the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." Can it, however, be said on
this account that they do not receive the complete sacrament? or that, if
they shall advance, and correct the vanity of their carnal opinions, they
must seek again what they had received? Each man receives after the fashion
of his own faith; yet how much does he obtain under the guidance of that
mercy of God, in the confident assurance of which the same apostle says,
"If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto
you"?(3) Yet the snares of heretics and schismatics prove for this reason
only too pernicious to the carnally-minded, because their very progress is
intercepted when their vain opinions are confirmed in opposition to the
Catholic truth, and the perversity of their dissension is strengthened
against the Catholic peace. Yet if the sacraments are the same, they are
everywhere complete, even when they are wrongly understood, and perverted
to be instruments of discord, just as the very writings of the gospel, if
they are only the same, are everywhere complete, even though quoted with a
boundless variety of false opinions. For as to what Jeremiah says:--"Why do
those who grieve me prevail against me? My wound is stubborn, whence shall
I be healed? In its origin it became unto me as lying water, having no
certainty,"(4)--if the term "water" were never used figuratively and in the
allegorical language of prophecy except to signify baptism, we should have
trouble in discovering what these words of Jeremiah meant; but as it is,
when "waters" are expressly used in the Apocalypse(5) to signify "peoples,"
I do not see why, by "lying water having no certainty," I should not
understand, a "lying people, whom I cannot trust."
CHAP. 16.--21. But when it is said that "the Holy Spirit is given by
the imposition of hands in the Catholic Church only, I suppose that our
ancestors meant that we should understand thereby what the apostle says,
"Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost
which is given unto us."(6) For this is that very love which is wanting in
all who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church; and for lack
of this, "though they speak with the tongues of men and of angels, though
they understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though they have the
gift of prophecy, and all faith, so that they could remove mountains, and
though they bestow all their goods to feed the poor, and though they give
their bodies to be burned, it profiteth them nothing."(7) But those are
wanting in God's love who do not care for the unity of the Church; and
consequently we are right in understanding that the Holy Spirit may be said
not to be received except in the Catholic Church. For the Holy Spirit is
not only given by the laying on of hands amid the testimony of temporal
sensible miracles, as He was given in former days to be the credentials of
a rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the first beginnings of the
Church. For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid
that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak with
tongues? but it is understood that invisibly and imperceptibly, on account
of the bond of peace, divine love is breathed into their hearts, so that
they may be able to say, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." But there are many
operations of the Holy Spirit, which the same apostle commemorates in a
certain passage at such length as he thinks sufficient, and then concludes:
"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every
man severally as He will."(1) Since, then, the sacrament is one thing,
which even Simon Magus could have;(2) and the operation of the Spirit is
another thing, which is even often found in wicked men, as Saul had the
gift of prophecy;(3) and that operation of the same Spirit is a third
thing, which only the good can have, as "the end of the commandment is
charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned:"(4) whatever, therefore, may be received by heretics and
schismatics, the charity which covereth the multitude of sins is the
especial gift of Catholic unity and peace; nor is it found in all that are
within that bond, since not all that are within it are of it, as we shall
see in the proper place. At any rate, outside the bond that love cannot
exist, without which all the other requisites, even if they can be
recognized and approved, cannot profit or release from sin. But the laying
on of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism, incapable
of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?(5)
CHAP. 17.--22. "For as regards the fact that to preserve the figure of
unity the Lord gave the power to Peter that whatsoever he should loose on
earth should be loosed,"(6) it is clear that that unity is also described
as one dove without fault.(7) Can it be said, then, that to this same dove
belong all those greedy ones, whose existence in the same Catholic Church
Cyprian himself so grievously bewailed? For birds of prey, I believe,
cannot be called doves, but rather hawks. How then did they baptize those
who used to plunder estates by treacherous deceit, and increase their
profits by compound usury,(8) if baptism is only given by that indivisible
and chaste and perfect dove, that unity which can only be understood as
existing among the good? Is it possible that, by the prayers of the saints
who are spiritual within the Church, as though by the frequent lamentations
of the dove, a great sacrament is dispensed, with a secret administration
of the mercy of God, so that their sins also are loosed who are baptized,
not by the dove but by the hawk, if they come to that sacrament in the
peace of Catholic unity? But if this be so, why should it not also be the
case that, as each man comes from heresy or schism to the Catholic peace,
his sins should be loosed through their prayers? But the integrity of the
sacrament is everywhere recognized, though it will not avail for the
irrevocable remission of sins outside the unity of the Church. Nor will the
prayers of the saints, or, in other words, the groanings of that one dove,
be able to help one who is set in heresy or schism; just as they are not
able to help one who is placed within the Church, if by a wicked life he
himself retain the debts of his sins against himself, and that though he be
baptized, not by this hawk, but by the pious ministry of the dove herself.
CHAP. 18--23. "As my Father hath sent me," says our Lord, "even so send
I you. And what He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them,
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted
unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."(9)
Therefore, if they represented the Church, and this was said to them as to
the Church herself, it follows that the peace of the Church looses sins,
and estrangement from the Church retains them, not according to the will of
men, but according to the will of God and the prayers of the salts who are
spiritual, who "judge air things, but themselves are judged of no man."(10)
For the rock retains, the rock remits; the dove retains, the dove remits;
unity retains, unity remits. But the peace of this unity exists only in the
good, in those who are either already spiritual, or are advancing by the
obedience of concord to spiritual things; it exists not in the bad, whether
they make disturbances abroad, or are endured within the Church with
lamentations, baptizing and being baptized. But just as those who are
tolerated with groanings within the Church, although they do not belong to
the same unity of the dove, and to that "glorious Church, not having spot
or wrinkle, or any such thing,"(1) yet if they are corrected, and confess
that they approached to baptism most unworthily, are not baptized again,
but begin to belong to the dove, through whose groans those sins are
remitted which were retained in them who were estranged from her peace; so
those also who are more openly without the Church, if they have received
the same sacraments, are not freed from their sins on coming, after
correction, to the unity of the Church, by a repetition of baptism, but by
the same law of charity and bond of unity. For if "those only may baptize
who are set over the Church, and established by the law of the gospel and
ordination as appointed by the Lord," were they in any wise of this kind
who seized on estates by treacherous frauds, and increased their gains by
compound interest? I trow not, since those are established by ordination as
appointed of the Lord, of whom the apostle, in giving them a standard,
says, "Not greedy, not given to filthy lucre."(2) Yet men of this kind used
to baptize in the time of Cyprian himself; and he confesses with many
lamentations that they were his fellow-bishops, and endures them with the
great reward of tolerance. Yet did they not confer remission of sins, which
is granted through the prayers of the saints, that is, the groans of the
dove, whoever it be that baptizes, if those to whom it is given belong to
her peace. For the Lord would not say to robbers and usurers, "Whose soever
sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him; and whose soever sins ye
retain, they shall be retained." "Outside the Church, indeed, nothing can
be either bound or loosed, since there there is no one who can either bind
or loose;" but he is loosed who has made peace with the dove, and he is
bound who is not at peace with the dove, whether he is openly without, or
appears to be within.
24. But we know that Dathan, Korah, and Abiram,(3) who tried to usurp
to themselves the right of sacrificing, contrary to the unity of the people
of God, and also the sons of Aaron who offered strange fire upon the
altar,(4) did not escape punishment. Nor do we say that such offenses
remain unpunished, unless those guilty of them correct themselves, if the
patience of God leading them to repentance s give them time for correction.
CHAP. 19.--25. They indeed who say that baptism is not to be repeated,
because only hands were laid on those whom Philip the deacon had
baptized,(6) are saying what is quite beside the point; and far be it from
us, in seeking the truth, to use such arguments as this. Wherefore we are
all the further from "yielding to heretics,"(7) if we deny that what they
possess of Christ's Church is their own property, and do not refuse to
acknowledge the standard of our General because of the crimes of
deserters; nay, all the more because "the Lord our God is a jealous
God,"(8) let us refuse, whenever we see anything of His with an alien, to
allow him to consider it his own. For of a truth the jealous God Himself
rebukes the woman who commits fornication against Him, as the type of an
erring people, and says that she gave to her lovers what belonged to Him,
and again received from them what was not theirs but His. In the hands of
the adulterous woman and the adulterous lovers, God in His wrath, as a
jealous God, recognizes His gifts; and do we say that baptism, consecrated
in the words of the gospel, belongs to heretics? and are we willing, from
consideration of their deeds, to attribute to them even what belongs to
God, as though they had the power to pollute it, or as though they could
make what is God's to be their own, because they themselves have refused to
belong to God?
26. Who is that adulterous woman whom the prophet Hosea points out, who
said, "I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my
wool and my flax, and everything that befits me?"(9) Let us grant that we
may understand this also of the people of the Jews that went astray; yet
whom else are the false Christians (such as are all heretics and
schismatics) wont to imitate, except false Israelites? For there were also
true Israelites, as the Lord Himself bears witness to Nathanael, "Behold an
Israelite indeed, in Whom is no guile."(10) But who are true Christians,
save those of whom the same Lord said, "He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me?"(11) But what is it to keep His
commandments, except to abide in love? Whence also He says, "A new
commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another;" and again, "By this
shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to
another."(12) But who can doubt that this was spoken not only to those who
heard His words with their fleshly ears when He was present with them, but
also to those who learn His words through the gospel, when He is sitting on
His throne in heaven? For He came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill.(1) But the fulfilling of the law is love.(2) And in this Cyprian
abounded greatly, insomuch that though he held a different view concerning
baptism, he yet did not forsake the unity of the Church, and was in the
Lord's vine a branch firmly rooted, bearing fruit, which the heavenly
Husbandman purged with the knife of suffering, that it should bear more
fruit.(3) But the enemies of this brotherly love, whether they are openly
without, or appear to be within, are false Christians, and antichrists. For
when they have found an opportunity, they go out, as it is written: "A man
wishing to separate himself from his friends, seeketh opportunities."(4)
But even if occasions are wanting, while they seem to be within, they are
severed from that invisible bond of love. Whence St. John says, "They went
out from us, but they were not of us; for had they been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us."(5) He does not say that they ceased to be
of us by going out, but that they went out because they were not of us. The
Apostle Paul also speaks of certain men who had erred concerning the truth,
and were overthrowing the faith of some; whose word was eating as a canker.
Yet in saying that they should be avoided, he nevertheless intimates that
they were all in one great house, but as vessels to dishonor,--I suppose
because they had not as yet gone out. Or if they had already gone out, how
can he say that they were in the same great house with the honorable
vessels, unless it was in virtue of the sacraments themselves, which even
in the severed meetings of heretics are not changed, that he speaks of all
as belonging to the same great house, though in different degrees of
esteem, some to honor and some to dishonor? For thus he speaks in his
Epistle to Timothy: "But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will
increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker;
of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred,
saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of
some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal,
The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name
of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to
honor, and some to dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these,
he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master's
use, and prepared unto every good work."(6) But what is it to purge oneself
from such as these, except what he said just before, "Let every one that
nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." And lest any one should
think that, as being in one great house with them, he might perish with
such as these, he has most carefully forewarned them, "The Lord knoweth
them that are His,"--those, namely, who, by departing from iniquity, purge
themselves from the vessels made to dishonor, lest they should perish with
them whom they are compelled to tolerate in the great house.
27. They, therefore, who are wicked, evildoers, carnal, fleshly,
devilish, think that they receive at the hands of their seducers what are
the gifts of God alone, whether sacraments, or any spiritual workings about
present salvation. But these men have not love towards God, but are busied
about those by whose pride they are led astray, and are compared to the
adulterous woman, whom the prophet introduces as saying, "I will go after
my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, and my
oil, and everything that befits me." For thus arise heresies and schisms,
when the fleshly people which is not rounded on the love of God says, "I
will go after my lovers," with whom, either by corruption of her faith, or
by the puffing up of her pride, she shamefully commits adultery. But for
the sake of those who, having undergone the difficulties, and straits, and
barriers of the empty reasoning of those by whom they are led astray,
afterwards feel the prickings of fear, and return to the way of peace, to
seeking God in all sincerity,--for their sake He goes on to say,
"Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall,
that she shall not find her paths. And she shall follow after her lovers,
but she shall not overtake them: and she shall seek them, but she shall not
find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband;
for then was it better with me than now." Then, that they may not attribute
to their seducers what they have that is sound, and derived from the
doctrine of truth, by which they lead them astray to the falseness of their
own dogmas and dissensions; that they may not think that what is sound in
them belongs to them, he immediately added, "And she did not know that I
gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her money; but she made
vessels of gold and silver for Baal."(1) For she had said above, "I will
go after my lovers, that give me my bread," etc., not at all understanding
that all this, which was held soundly and lawfully by her seducers, was of
God, and not of men. Nor would even they themselves claim these things for
themselves, and as it were assert a right in them, had not they in turn
been led astray by a people which had gone astray, when faith is reposed in
them, and such honors are paid to them, that they should be enabled thereby
to say such things, and claim such things for themselves, that their error
should be called truth, and their iniquity be thought righteousness, in
virtue of the sacraments and Scriptures, which they hold, not for
salvation, but only in appearance. Accordingly, the same adulterous woman
is addressed by the mouth of Ezekiel: "Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels
of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself
images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them; and tookest my(2)
broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine
incense before them. My meat also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil,
and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou hast even set it before thine idols
for a sweet savor: and this thou hast done."(3) For she turns all the
sacraments, and the words of the sacred books, to the images of her own
idols, with which her carnal mind delights to wallow. Nor yet, because
those images are false, and the doctrines of devils, speaking lies in
hypocrisy,(4) are those sacraments and divine utterances therefore so to
lose their due honor, as to be thought to belong to such as these; seeing
that the Lord says," Of my gold, and my silver, and my broidered garments,
and mine oil, and mine incense, and my meat," and so forth. Ought we,
because those erring ones think that these things belong to their seducers,
therefore not to recognize whose they really are, when He Himself says,
"And she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and
multiplied her money"? For He did not say that she did not have these
things because she was an adulteress; but she is said to have had them, and
that not as belonging to herself or her lovers, but to God, whose alone
they are. Although, therefore, she had her fornication, yet those things
wherewith she adorned it, whether as seduced or in her turn seducing,
belonged not to her, but to God. If these things were spoken in a figure of
the Jewish nation, when the scribes and Pharisees were rejecting the
commandment of God in order to set up their own traditions, so that they
were in a manner committing whoredom with a people which was abandoning
their God; and yet for all that, whoredom at that time among the people,
such as the Lord brought to light by convicting it, did not cause that the
mysteries should belong to them, which were not theirs but God's, who, in
speaking to the adulteress, says that all these things were His; whence the
Lord Himself also sent those whom He cleansed from leprosy to the same
mysteries, that they should offer sacrifice for themselves before the
priests, because that sacrifice had not become efficacious for them, which
He Himself afterwards wished to be commemorated in the Church for all of
them, because He Himself proclaimed the tidings to them all;--if this be
so, how much the more ought we, when we find the sacraments of the New
Testament among certain heretics or schismatics, not to attribute them to
these men, nor to condemn them, as though we could not recognize them? We
ought to recognize the gifts of the true husband, though in the possession
of an adulteress, and to amend, by the word of truth, that whoredom which
is the true possession of the unchaste woman, instead of finding fault with
the gifts, which belong entirely to the pitying Lord.
28. From these considerations, and such as these, our forefathers, not
only before the time of Cyprian and Agrippinus, but even afterwards,
maintained a most wholesome custom, that whenever they found anything
divine and lawful remaining in its integrity even in the midst of any
heresy or schism, they approved rather than repudiated it; but whatever
they found that was alien, and peculiar to that false doctrine or division,
this they convicted in the light of the truth, and healed. The points,
however, which remain to be considered in the letter written by Jubaianus,
must, I think, when looking at the size of this book, be taken in hand and
treated with a fresh beginning.
BOOK IV.
IN WHICH HE TREATS OF WHAT FOLLOWS IN THE SAME EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO
JUBAIANUS.
CHAP. 1.--1. The comparison of the Church with Paradise(1) shows us
that men may indeed receive her baptism outside her pale, but that no one
outside can either receive or retain the salvation of eternal happiness.
For, as the words of Scripture testify, the streams from the fountain of
Paradise flowed copiously even beyond its bounds. Record indeed is made of
their names; and through what countries they flow, and that they are
situated beyond the limits of Paradise, is known to all;(2) and yet in
Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, to which countries those rivers extended, there
is not found that blessedness of life which is recorded in Paradise.
Accordingly, though the waters of Paradise are found beyond its boundaries,
yet its happiness is in Paradise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the
Church may exist outside, but the gift of the life of happiness is found
alone within the Church, which has been rounded on a rock, which has
received the keys of binding and loosing.(3) "She it is alone who holds as
her privilege the whole power of her Bridegroom and Lord;"(4) by virtue of
which power as bride, she can bring forth sons even of handmaids. And
these, if they be not high-minded, shall be called into the lot of the
inheritance; but if they be high-minded, they shall remain outside.
CHAP. 2.--2. All the more, then, because "we are fighting s for the
honor and unity" of the Church, let us beware of giving to heretics the
credit of whatever we acknowledged among them as belonging to the Church;
but let us teach them by argument, that what they possess that is derived
from unity is of no efficacy to their salvation, unless they shall return
to that same unity. For "the water of the Church is full of faith, and
salvation, and holiness"(6) to those who use it rightly. No one, however,
can use it well outside the Church. But to those who use it perversely,
whether within or without the Church, it is employed to work punishment,
and does not conduce to their reward. And so baptism "cannot be corrupted
and polluted," though it be handled by the corrupt or by adulterers, just
as also "the Church herself is uncorrupt, and pure, and chaste."(7) And so
no share in it belongs to the avaricious, or thieves, or usurers,--many of
whom, by the testimony of Cyprian himself in many places of his letters,
exist not only without, but actually within the Church,--and yet they both
are baptized and do baptize, with no change in their hearts.
3. For this, too, he says, in one of his epistles(8) to the clergy on
the subject of prayer to God, in which, after the fashion of the holy
Daniel, he represents the sins of his people as falling upon himself. For
among many other evils of which he makes mention, he speaks of them also as
"renouncing the world in words only and not in deeds;" as the apostle says
of certain men, "They profess that they know God, but in works they deny
Him."(9) These, therefore, the blessed Cyprian shows to be contained within
the Church herself, who are baptized without their hearts being changed for
the better, seeing that they renounce the world in words and not in deeds,
as the Apostle Peter says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth
also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience),"(10) which certainly they had not of whom it
is said that they "renounced the world in words only, and not in deeds;"
and yet he does his utmost, by chiding and convincing them, to make them at
length walk in the way of Christ, and be His friends rather than friends of
the world.
CHAP. 3.--4. And if they would have obeyed him, and begun to live
rightly, not as false but as true Christians, would he have ordered them to
be baptized anew? Surely not; but their true conversion would have gained
this for them, that the sacrament which availed for their destruction while
they were yet unchanged, should begin when they changed to avail for their
salvation.
5. For neither are they "devoted to the Church"(1) who seem to be
within and live contrary to Christ, that is, act against His commandments;
nor can they be considered in any way to belong to that Church, which He so
purifies by the washing of water, "that He may present to Himself a
glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing."(2) But if
they are not in that Church to whose members they do not belong, they are
not in the Church of which it is said, "My dove is but one; she is the only
one of her mother;"(3) for she herself is without spot or wrinkle. Or else
let him who can assert that those are members of this dove who renounce the
world in words but not in deeds. Meantime there is one thing which we see,
from which I think it was said, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it
unto the Lords"(4) for God judgeth every day. For, according to His
foreknowledge, who knows whom He has foreordained before the foundation of
the world to be made like to the image of His Son, many who are even openly
outside, and are called heretics, are better than many good Catholics. For
we see what they are to-day, what they shall be to-morrow we know not. And
with God, with whom the future is already present, they already are what
they shall hereafter be. But we, according to what each man is at present,
inquire whether they are to be to-day reckoned among the members of the
Church which is called the one dove, and the Bride of Christ without a spot
or wrinkle,(5) of whom Cyprian says in the letter which I have quoted
above, that "they did not keep in the way of the Lord, nor observe the
commandments given unto them for their salvation; that they did not fulfill
the will of their Lord, being eager about their property and gains,
following the dictates of pride, giving way to envy and dissension,
careless about single-mindedness and faith, renouncing the world in words
only and not in deeds, pleasing each himself, and displeasing all men."(6)
But if the dove does not acknowledge them among her members, and if the
Lord shall say to them, supposing that they continue in the same
perversity, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity;"(7)
then they seem indeed to be in the Church, but are not; "nay, they even act
against the Church. How then can they baptize with the baptism of the
Church," a which is of avail neither to themselves, nor to those who
receive it from them, unless they are changed in heart with a true
conversion, so that the sacrament itself, which did not avail. them when
they received it whilst they were renouncing the world in words and not in
deeds, may begin to profit them when they shall begin to renounce it in
deeds also? And so too in the case of those whose separation from the
Church is open; for neither these nor those are as yet among the members of
the dove, but some of them perhaps will be at some future time.
CHAP. 4.--6. We do not, therefore, "acknowledge the baptism of
heretics,"(9) when we refuse to baptize after them; but because we
acknowledge the ordinance to be of Christ even among evil men, whether
openly separated from us, or secretly severed whilst within our body, we
receive it with due respect, having corrected those who were wrong in the
points wherein they went astray. However as I seem to be hard pressed when
it is said to me, "Does then a heretic confer remission of sins?" so I in
turn press hard when I say, Does then he who violates the commands of
Heaven, the avaricious man, the robber, the usurer, the envious man, does
he who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, confer such
remission? If you mean by the force of God's sacrament, then both the one
and the other; if by his own merit, neither of them. For that sacrament,
even in the hands of wicked men, is known to be of Christ; but neither the
one nor the other of these men is found in the body of the one uncorrupt,
holy, chaste dove, which has neither spot nor wrinkle. And just as baptism
is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in
deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism;
but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from
that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him.
7. "He therefore that is baptized in heresy does not become the temple
of God;(10) but does it therefore follow that he is not to be considered as
baptized? For neither does the avaricious man, baptized within the Church,
become the temple of God unless he depart from his avarice; for they who
become the temple of God certainly inherit the kingdom of God. But the
apostle says, among many other things, "Neither the covetous, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1) For in another place
the same apostle compares covetousness to the worship of idols: "Nor
covetous man," he says, "who is an idolater;"(2) which meaning the same
Cyprian has so far extended in a letter to Antonianus, that he did not
hesitate to compare the sin of covetousness with that of men who in time of
persecution had declared in writing that they would offer incense.(3) The
man, then, who is baptized in heresy in the name of the Holy Trinity, yet
does not become the temple of God unless he abandons his heresy, just as
the covetous man who has been baptized in the same name does not become the
temple of God unless he abandons his covetousness, which is idolatry. For
this, too, the same apostle says: "What agreement hath the temple of God
with idols?"(4) Let it not, then, be asked of us "of what God he is made
the temple"(5) when we say that he is not made the temple of God at all.
Yet he is not therefore unbaptized, nor does his foul error cause that what
he has received, consecrated in the words of the gospel, should not be the
holy sacrament; just as the other man's covetousness (which is idolatry)
and great uncleanness cannot prevent what he receives from being holy
baptism, even though he be baptized with the same words of the gospel by
another man covetous like himself.
CHAP. 5.--8. "Further," Cyprian goes on to say, "in vain do some, who
are overcome by reason, oppose to us custom, as though custom were superior
to truth, or that were not to be followed in spiritual things which has
been revealed by the Holy Spirit, as the better way."(6) This is clearly
true, since reason and truth are to be preferred to custom. But when truth
supports custom, nothing should be more strongly maintained. Then he
proceeds as follows: "For one may pardon a man who merely errs, as the
Apostle Paul says of himself, 'Who was before a blasphemer, a persecutor,
and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly;'(7) but
he who, after inspiration and revelation given, perseveres advisedly and
knowingly in his former error, sins without hope of pardon on the ground of
ignorance. For he rests on a kind of presumption and obstinacy, when he is
overcome by reason." This is most true, that his sin is much more grievous
who has sinned wittingly than his who has sinned through ignorance. And so
in the case of the holy Cyprian, who was not only learned, but also patient
of instruction, which he so fully himself understood to be a part of the
praise of the bishop whom the apostle describes,(8) that he said, "This
also should be approved in a bishop, that he not only teach with knowledge,
but also learn with patience."(9) I do not doubt that if he had had the
opportunity of discussing this question, which has been so long and so much
disputed in the Church, with the pious and learned men to whom we owe it
that subsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a
plenary Council, he would have shown, without hesitation, not only how
learned he was in those things which he had grasped with all the security
of truth, but also how ready he was to receive instruction in what he had
failed to perceive. And yet, since it is so clear that it is much more
grievous to sin wittingly than in ignorance, I should be glad if any one
would tell me which is the worse,--the man who falls into heresy, not
knowing how great a sin it is, or the man who refuses to abandon his
covetousness, knowing its enormity? I might even put the question thus: If
one man unwittingly fall into heresy, and another knowingly refuse to
depart from idolatry, since the apostle himself says, "The covetous man,
which is an idolater;" and Cyprian too understood the same passage in just
the same way, when he says, in his letter to Antonianus, "Nor let the new
heretics flatter themselves in this, that they say they do not communicate
with idolaters, whereas there are amongst them both adulterers and covetous
persons, who are held guilty of the sin of idolatry; 'for know this, and
understand, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who
is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of
God;'(10) and again, 'Mortify therefore your members which are upon the
earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,
and covetousness, which is idolatry.'"(11) I ask, therefore, which sins
more deeply,--he who ignorantly has fallen into heresy, or he who wittingly
has refused to abandon covetousness, that is idolatry? According to that
rule by which the sins of those who sin wittingly are placed before those
of the ignorant, the man who is covetous with knowledge takes the first
place in sin. But as it is possible that the greatness of the actual sin
should produce the same effect in the case of heresy that the witting
commission of the sin produces in that of covetousness, let us suppose the
ignorant heretic to be on a par in guilt with the consciously covetous man,
although the evidence which Cyprian himself has advanced from the apostle
does not seem to prove this. For what is it that we abominate in heretics
except their blasphemies? But when he wished to show that ignorance of the
sin may conduce to ease in obtaining pardon, he advanced a proof from the
case of the apostle, when he says; "Who was before a blasphemer, and a
persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it
ignorantly."(1) But if possible, as I said before, let the sins of the two
men--the blasphemy of the unconscious, and the idolatry of the conscious
sinner--be esteemed of equal weight; and let them be judged by the same
sentence,--he who, in seeking for Christ, falls into a truth-like setting
forth of what is false, and he who wittingly resists Christ speaking
through His apostle, "seeing that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor
covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God,"(2)--and then I would ask why baptism and the words of
the gospel are held as naught in the former case, and accounted valid in
the latter, when each is alike found to be estranged from the members of
the dove. Is it because the former is an open combatant outside, that he
should not be admitted, the latter a cunning assenter within the fold, that
he may not be expelled?
CHAP. 6.--9. But as regards his saying, "Nor let any one affirm that
what they have received from the apostles, that they follow; for the
apostles handed down only one Church and one baptism, and that appointed
only in the same Church:"(3) this does not so much move me to venture to
condemn the baptism of Christ when found amongst heretics (just as it is
necessary to recognize the gospel itself when I find it with them, though I
abominate their error), as it warns me that there were some even in the
times of the holy Cyprian who traced to the authority of the apostles that
custom against which the African Councils were held, and in respect of
which he himself said a little above, "In vain do those who are beaten by
reason oppose to us the authority of custom." Nor do I find the reason why
the same Cyprian found this very custom, which after his time was confirmed
by nothing less than a plenary Council of the whole world, already so
strong before his time, that when with all his learning he sought an
authority worth following for changing it, he found nothing but a Council
of Agrippinus held in Africa a very few years before his own time. And
seeing that this was not enough for him, as against the custom of the whole
world, he laid hold on these reasons which we just now, considering them
with great care, and being confirmed by the antiquity of the custom itself,
and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, found to be truth-
like rather than true; which, however, seemed to him true, as he toiled in
a question of the greatest obscurity, and was in doubt about the remission
of sins,--whether it could fail to be given in the baptism of Christ, and
whether it could be given among heretics. In which matter, if an imperfect
revelation of the truth was given to Cyprian, that the greatness of his
love in not deserting the unity of the Church might be made manifest, there
is yet not any reason why any one should venture to claim superiority over
the strong defenses and excellence of his virtues, and the abundance of
graces which were found in him, merely because, with the instruction
derived from the strength of a general Council, he sees something which
Cyprian did not see, because the Church had not yet held a plenary Council
on the matter. Just as no one is so insane as to set himself up as
surpassing the merits of the Apostle Peter, because, taught by the epistles
of the Apostle Paul, and confirmed by the custom of the Church herself, he
does not compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Peter once had done.(4)
10. We do not then "find that any one, after being baptized among
heretics, was afterwards admitted by the apostles with the same baptism,
and communicated;"(5) but neither do we find this, that any one coming from
the society of heretics, who had been baptized among them, was baptized
anew by the apostles. But this custom, which even then those who looked
back to past ages could not find to have been invented by men of a later
time, is rightly believed to have been handed down from the apostles. And
there are many other things of the same kind, which it would be tedious to
recount. Wherefore, if they had something to say for themselves to whom
Cyprian, wishing to persuade them of the truth of his own view, says, "Let
no one say, What we have received from the apostles, that we follow," with
how much more force we now say, What the custom of the Church has always
held, what this argument has failed to prove false, and what a plenary
Council has confirmed, this we follow! To this we may add that it may also
be said, after a careful inquiry into the reasoning on both sides of the
discussion, and into the evidence of Scripture, What truth has declared,
that we follow.
CHAP. 7.--11. For in fact, as to what some opposed to the reasoning of
Cyprian, that the apostle says, "Notwithstanding every way, whether in
pretence or in truth, let Christ be preached;"(1) Cyprian rightly exposed
their error, showing that it has nothing to do with the case of heretics,
since the apostle was speaking of those who were acting within the Church,
with malicious envy seeking their own profit. They announced Christ,
indeed, according to the truth whereby we believe in Christ, but not in the
spirit in which He was announced by the good evangelists to the sons of the
dove. "For Paul," he says, "in his epistle was not speaking of heretics, or
of their baptism, so that it could be shown that he had laid down anything
concerning this matter. He was speaking of brethren, whether as walking
disorderly and contrary to the discipline of the Church, or as keeping the
discipline of the Church in the fear of God. And he declared that some of
them spoke the word of God steadfastly and fearlessly, but that some were
acting in envy and strife; that some had kept themselves encompassed with
kindly Christian love, but that others entertained malice and strife: but
yet that he patiently endured all things, with the view that, whether in
truth or in pretence, the name of Christ, which Paul preached, might come
to the knowledge of the greatest number, and that the sowing of the word,
which was as yet a new and unaccustomed work, might spread more widely by
the preaching of those that spoke. Furthermore, it is one thing for those
who are within the Church to speak in the name of Christ, another thing for
those who are without, acting against the Church, to baptize in the name of
Christ."(2) These words of Cyprian seem to warn us that we must distinguish
between those who are bad outside, and those who are bad within the Church.
And those whom he says that the apostle represents as preaching the gospel
impurely and of envy, he says truly were within. This much, however, I
think I may say without rashness, if no one outside can have anything which
is of Christ, neither can any one within have anything which is of the
devil. For if that closed garden can contain the thorns of the devil, why
cannot the fountain of Christ equally flow beyond the garden's bounds? But
if it cannot contain them, whence, even in the time of the Apostle Paul
himself, did there arise amongst those who were within so great an evil of
envy and malicious strife? For these are the words of Cyprian. Can it be
that envy and malicious strife are a small evil? How then were those in
unity who were not at peace? For it is not my voice, nor that of any man,
but of the Lord Himself; nor did the sound go forth from men, but from
angels, at the birth of Christ, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace to men of good will."(3) And this certainly would not have been
proclaimed by the voice of angels when Christ was born upon the earth,
unless God wished this to be understood, that those are in the unity of the
body of Christ who are united in the peace of Christ, and those are in the
peace of Christ who are of good will. Furthermore, as good will is shown in
kindliness, so is bad will shown in malice.
CHAP. 8.--12. In short, we may see how great an evil in itself is envy,
which cannot be other than malicious. Let us not look for other testimony.
Cyprian himself is sufficient for us, through whose mouth the Lord poured
forth so many thunders in most perfect truth, and uttered so many useful
precepts about envy and malignity. Let us therefore read the letter of
Cyprian about envy and malignity, and see how great an evil it is to envy
those better than ourselves,--an evil whose origin he shows in memorable
words to have sprung from the devil himself. "To feel jealousy," he says,
"of what you regard as good, and to envy those who are better than
yourselves, to some, dearest brethren, seems a light and minute
offense."(4) And again a little later, when he was inquiring into the
source and origin of the evil, he says, "From this the devil, in the very
beginning of the world, perished first himself, and led others to
destruction."(5) And further on in the same chapter: "What an evil, dearest
brethren, is that by which an angel fell! by which that exalted and
illustrious loftiness was able to be deceived and overthrown! by which he
was deceived who was the deceiver! From that time envy stalks upon the
earth, when man, about to perish through malignity, submits himself to the
teacher of perdition,--when he who envies imitates the devil, as it is
written, 'Through envy of the devil came death into the world, and they
that do hold of his side do find it.'"(6) How true, how forcible are these
words of Cyprian, in an epistle known throughout the world, we cannot fail
to recognize. It was truly fitting for Cyprian to argue and warn most
forcibly about envy and malignity, from which most deadly evil he proved
his own heart to be so far removed by the abundance of his Christian love;
by carefully guarding which he remained in the unity of communion with his
colleagues, who without ill-feeling entertained different views about
baptism, whilst he himself differed in opinion from them, not through any
contention of ill will, but through human infirmity, erring in a point
which God, in His own good time, would reveal to him by reason of his
perseverance in love. For he says openly, "Judging no one, nor depriving
any of the right of communion if he differ from us. For no one of us
setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces
his colleagues to a necessity of obeying."(1) And in the end of the epistle
before us he says, "These things I have written to you briefly, dearest
brother, according to my poor ability, prescribing to or prejudging no one,
so as to prevent each bishop from doing what he thinks right in the free
exercise of his own judgment. We, so far as in us lies, do not strive on
behalf of heretics with our colleges and fellow-bishops, with whom we hold
the harmony that God enjoins, and the peace of our Lord, especially as the
apostle says, 'If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.'(2) Christian love in our souls, the honor of
our fraternity, the bond of faith, the harmony of the priesthood, all these
are maintained by us with patience and gentleness. For this cause we have
also, so far as our poor ability admitted, by the permission and
inspiration of the Lord, written now a treatise on the benefit of
patience,(3) which we have sent to you in consideration of our mutual
affection."(4)
CHAP. 9.--13. By this patience of Christian love he not only endured
the difference of opinion manifested in all kindliness by his good
colleagues on an obscure point, as he also himself received toleration,
till, in process of time, when it so pleased God, what had always been a
most wholesome custom was further confirmed by a declaration of the truth
in a plenary Council, but he even put up with those who were manifestly
bad, as was very well known to himself, who did not entertain a different
view in consequence of the obscurity of the question, but acted contrary to
their preaching in the evil practices of an abandoned life, as the apostle
says of them "Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou
steal?"(5) For Cyprian says in his letter of such bishops of his own time,
his own colleagues, and remaining in communion with him, "While they had
brethren starving in the Church, they tried to amass large sums of money,
they took possession of estates by fraudulent proceedings, they multiplied
their gains by accumulated usuries."(6) For here there is no obscure
question. Scripture declares openly, "Neither covetous nor extortioners
shall inherit the kingdom of God;"(7) and "He that putteth out his money to
usury,"(8) and "No whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who
is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of
God."(9) He therefore certainly would not, without knowledge, have brought
accusations of such covetousness, that men not only greedily treasured up
their own goods, but also fraudulently appropriated the goods of others, or
of idolatry existing in such enormity as he understands and proves it to
exist; nor assuredly would he bear false witness against his fellow-
bishops. And yet with the bowels of fatherly and motherly love he endured
them, lest that, by rooting out the tares before their time, the wheat
should also have been rooted up,(10) imitating assuredly the Apostle Paul,
who, with the same love towards the Church, endured those who were ill-
disposed and envious towards him.(11)
14. But yet because "by the envy of the devil death entered into the
world, and they that do hold of his side do find it,"(12) not because they
are created by God, but because they go astray of themselves, as Cyprian
also says himself, seeing that the devil, before he was a devil, was an
angel, and good, how can it be that they who are of the devil's side are in
the unity of Christ? Beyond all doubt, as the Lord Himself says, "an enemy
hath done this," who "sowed tares among the wheat."(13) As therefore what
is of the devil within the fold must be convicted, so what is of Christ
without must be recognized. Has the devil what is his within the unity of
the Church, and shall Christ not have what is His without? This, perhaps,
might be said of individual men, that as the devil has none that are his
among the holy angels, so God has none that are His outside the communion
of the Church. But though it may be allowed to the devil to mingle tares,
that is, wicked men, with this Church which still wears the mortal nature
of flesh, so long as it is wandering far from God, he being allowed this
just because of the pilgrimage of the Church herself, that men may desire
more ardently the rest of that country which the angels enjoy, yet this
cannot be said of the sacraments. For, as the tares within the Church can
have and handle them, though not for salvation, but for the destruction to
which they are destined in the fire, so also can the tares without, which
received them from seceders from within; for they did not lose them by
seceding. This, indeed, is made plain from the fact that baptism is not
conferred again on their return, when any of the very men who seceded
happen to come back again. And let not any one say, Why, what fruit hath
the tares? For if this be so, their condition is the same, so far as this
goes, both inside and without. For it surely cannot be that grains of corn
are found in the tares inside, and not in those without. But when the
question is of the sacrament, we do not consider whether the tares bear any
fruit, but whether they have any share of heaven; for the tares, both
within and without, share the rain with the wheat itself, which rain is in
itself heavenly and sweet, even though under its influence the tares grow
up in barrenness. And so the sacrament, according to the gospel of Christ,
is divine and pleasant; nor is it to be esteemed as naught because of the
barrenness of those on whom its dew falls even without.
CHAP. 10.--15. But some one may say that the tares within may more
easily be converted into wheat. I grant that it is so; but what has this to
do with the question of repeating baptism? You surely do not maintain that
if a man converted from heresy, through the occasion and opportunity given
by his conversion, should bear fruit before another who, being within the
Church, is more slow to be washed from his iniquity, and so corrected and
changed, the former therefore needs not to be baptized again, but the
churchman to be baptized again, who was outstripped by him who came from
the heretics, because of the greater slowness of his amendment. It has
nothing, therefore, to do with the question now at issue who is later or
slower in being converted from his especial waywardness to the straight
path of faith, or hope, or charity. For although the bad within the fold
are more easily made good yet it will sometimes happen that certain of the
number of those outside will outstrip in their conversion certain of those
within; and while these remain in barrenness, the former, being restored to
unity and communion, will bear fruit with patience, thirty-fold, or sixty-
fold, or a hundred-fold.(1) Or if those only are to be called tares who
remain in perverse error to the end, there are many ears of corn outside,
and many tares within.
16. But it will be urged that the bad outside are worse than those
within. It is indeed a weighty question, whether Nicolaus, being already
severed from the Church,(2) or Simon, who was still within it,(3) was the
worse,--the one being a heretic, the other a sorcerer. But if the mere fact
of division, as being the clearest token of violated charity, is held to be
the worse evil, I grant that it is so. Yet many, though they have lost all
feelings of charity, yet do not secede from considerations of worldly
profit; and as they seek their own, not the things which are Jesus
Christ's,(4) what they are unwilling to secede from is not the unity of
Christ, but their own temporal advantage. Whence it is said in praise of
charity, that she "seeketh not her own."(5)
17. Now, therefore, the question is, how could men of the party of the
devil belong to the Church, which has no spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing,(6) of which also it is said, "My dove is one?"(7) But if they
cannot, it is clear that she groans among those who are not of her, some
treacherously laying wait within, some barking at her gate without. Such
men, however, even within, both receive baptism, and possess it, and
transmit it holy in itself; nor is it in any way defiled by their
wickedness, in which they persevere even to the end. Wherefore the same
blessed Cyprian teaches us that baptism is to be considered as consecrated
in itself by the words of the gospel, as the Church has received, without
joining to it or mingling with it any consideration of waywardness and
wickedness on the part of either minister or recipients; since he himself
points out to us both truths,--both that there have been some within the
Church who did not cherish kindly Christian love, but practised envy and
unkind dissension, of whom the Apostle Paul spoke; and also that the
envious belong to the devil's party, as he testifies in the most open way
in the epistle which he wrote about envy and malignity. Wherefore, since it
is clearly possible that in those who belong to the devil's party, Christ's
sacrament may yet be holy,--not, indeed, to their salvation, but to their
condemnation, and that not only if they are led astray after they have been
baptized, but even if they were such in heart when they received the
sacrament, renouncing the world (as the same Cyprian shows) in words only
and not in deeds;(1) and since even if afterwards they be brought into the
right way, the sacrament is not to be again administered which they
received when they were astray; so far as I can see, the case is already
clear and evident, that in the question of baptism we have to consider, not
who gives, but what he gives; not who receives, but what he receives not
who has, but what he has. For if men of the party of the devil, and
therefore in no way belonging to the one dove, can yet receive, and have,
and give baptism in all its holiness, in no way defiled by their
waywardness, as we are taught by the letters of Cyprian himself, how are we
ascribing to heretics what does not belong to them? how are we saying that
what is really Christ's is theirs, and not rather recognizing in them the
signs of our Sovereign, and correcting the deeds of deserters from Him?
Wherefore it is one thing, as the holy Cyprian says, "for those within in
the Church, to speak in the name of Christ another thing for those without,
who are acting against the Church, to baptize in His name."(2) But both
many who are within act against the Church by evil living, and by enticing
weak souls to copy their lives; and some who are without speak in Christ's
name, and are not forbidden to work the works of Christ, but only to be
without, since for the healing of their souls we grasp at them, or reason
with them, or exhort them. For he, too, was without who did not follow
Christ with His disciples, and yet in Christ's name was casting out devils,
which the Lord enjoined that he should not be prevented from doing;(3)
although, certainly, in the point where he was imperfect he was to be made
whole, in accordance with the words of the Lord, in which He says, "He that
is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth
abroad."(4) Therefore both some things are done outside in the name of
Christ not against the Church, and some things are done inside on the
devil's part which are against the Church.
CHAP. 11.--18. What shall we say of what is also wonderful, that he who
carefully observes may find that it is possible that certain persons,
without violating Christian charity, may yet teach what is useless, as
Peter wished to compel the Gentiles to observe Jewish customs,(5) as
Cyprian himself would force heretics to be baptized anew? whence the
apostle says to such good members, who are rooted in charity, and yet walk
not rightly in some points, "If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God
shall reveal even this unto you;"(6) and that some again, though devoid of
charity, may teach something wholesome? of whom the Lord says, "The scribes
and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say
and do not."(7) Whence the apostle also says of those envious and malicious
ones who yet preach salvation through Christ, "Whether in pretense, or in
truth, let Christ be preached."(8) Wherefore, both within and without, the
waywardness of man is to be corrected, but the divine sacraments and
utterances are not to be attributed to men. He is not, therefore, a "patron
of heretics" who refuses to attribute to them what he knows not to belong
to them, even though it be found among them. We do not grant baptism to be
theirs; but we recognize His baptism of whom it is said, "The same is He
which baptizeth,"(9) wheresoever we find it. But if "the treacherous and
blasphemous man" continue in his treachery and blasphemy, he receives no
"remission of sins either without" or within the Church; or if, by the
power of the sacrament, he receives it for the moment, the same force
operates both without and within, as the power of the name of Christ used
to work the expulsion of devils even without the Church.
CHAP. 12.--19. But he urges that "we find that the apostles, in all
their epistles, execrated and abhorred the sacrilegious wickedness of
heretics, so as to say that 'their word does spread as a canker.'"(10) What
then? Does not Paul also show that those who said, "Let us eat and drink,
for to-morrow we die," were corrupters of good manners by their evil
communications, adding immediately afterwards, "Evil communications corrupt
good manners;" and yet he intimated that these were within the Church when
he says, "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead?"(11) But when does he fail to express his abhorrence of the covetous?
Or could anything be said in stronger terms, than that covetousness should
be called idolatry, as the same apostle declared?(12) Nor did Cyprian
understand his language otherwise, inserting it when need required in his
letters; though he confesses that in his time there were in the Church not
covetous men of an ordinary type, but robbers and usurers, and these found
not among the masses, but among the bishops. And yet I should be willing to
understand that those of whom the apostle says, "Their word does spread as
a canker," were without the Church, but Cyprian himself will not allow me.
For, when showing, in his letter to Antonianus,(1) that no man ought to
sever himself from the unity of the Church before the time of the final
separation of the just and unjust, merely because of the admixture of evil
men in the Church, when he makes it manifest how holy he was, and deserving
of the illustrious martyrdom which he won, he says, "What swelling of
arrogance it is, what forgetfulness of humility and gentleness, that any
one should dare or believe that he can do what the Lord did not grant even
to the apostles,--to think that he can distinguish the tares from the
wheat, or, as if it were granted to him to carry the fan and purge the
floor, to endeavor to separate the chaff from the grain! And whereas the
apostle says, 'But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and
of silver, but also of wood and of earth,'(2) that he should seem to choose
those of gold and of silver, and despise and cast away and condemn those of
wood and of earth, when really the vessels of wood are only to be burned in
the day of the Lord by the burning of the divine conflagration, and those
of earth are to be broken by Him to whom the 'rod of iron(3) has been
given.'"(4) By this argument, therefore, against those who, under the
pretext of avoiding the society of wicked men, had severed themselves from
the unity of the Church, Cyprian shows that by the great house of which the
apostle spoke, in which there were not only vessels of gold and of silver,
but also of wood and of earth, he understood nothing else but the Church,
in which there should be good and bad, till at the last day it should be
cleansed as a threshing-floor by the winnowing-fan. And if this be so, in
the Church herself, that is, in the great house itself, there were vessels
to dishonor, whose word did spread like a canker. For the apostle, speaking
of them, taught as follows: "And their word," he says, "will spread as doth
a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have
erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the
faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure. having
this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that
nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there
are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of
earth."(5) If, therefore, they whose words did spread as doth a canker were
as it were vessels to dishonor in the great house, and by that "great
house" Cyprian understands the unity of the Church itself, surely it cannot
be that their canker polluted the baptism of Christ. Accordingly, neither
without, any more than within, can any one who is of the devil's party,
either in himself or in any other person, stain the sacrament which is of
Christ. It is not, therefore, the case that "the word which spreads as a
canker to the ears of those who hear it gives remission of sins;"(6) but
when baptism is given in the words of the gospel, however great be the
perverseness of understanding on the part either of him through whom, or of
him to whom it is given, the sacrament itself is holy in itself on account
of Him whose sacrament it is. And if any one, receiving it at the hands of
a misguided man, yet does not receive the perversity of the minister, but
only the holiness of the mystery, being closely bound to the unity of the
Church in good faith and hope and charity, he receives remission of his
sins,--not by the words which do eat as doth a canker, but by the
sacraments of the gospel flowing from a heavenly source. But if the
recipient himself be misguided, on the one hand, what is given is of no
avail for the salvation of the misguided man; and yet, on the other hand,
that which is received remains holy in the recipient, and is not renewed to
him if he be brought to the right way.
CHAP. 13.--20. There is therefore "no fellowship between righteousness
and unrighteousness,"(7) not only without, but also within the Church; for
"the Lord knoweth them that are His," and "Let every one that nameth the
name of Christ depart from iniquity." There is also "no communion between
light and darkness,"(8) not only without, but also within the Church; for
"he that hateth his brother is still in darkness."(9) And they at any rate
hated Paul, who, preaching Christ of envy and malicious strife, supposed
that they added affliction to his bonds;(10) and yet the same Cyprian
understands these still to have been within the Church. Since, therefore,
"neither darkness can enlighten, nor unrighteousness justify,"(1) as
Cyprian again says, I ask, how could those men baptize within the very
Church herself? I ask, how could those vessels which the large house
contains not to honor, but to dishonor, administer what is holy for the
sanctifying of men within the great house itself, unless because that
holiness of the sacrament cannot be polluted even by the unclean, either
when it is given at their hands, or when it is received by those who in
heart and life are not changed for the better? of whom, as situated within
the Church, Cyprian himself says, "Renouncing the world in word only, and
not in deed."(2)
21. There are therefore also within the Church "enemies of God, whose
hearts the spirit of Antichrist has possessed;" and yet they, "deal with
spiritual and divine things,"(3) which cannot profit for their salvation so
long as they remain such as they are; and yet neither can they pollute them
by their own uncleanness. With regard to what he says, therefore, "that
they have no part given them in the saving grace of the Church, who,
scattering and fighting against the Church of Christ, are called
adversaries by Christ Himself, and antichrists by His apostles,(3) this
must be received under the consideration that there are men of this kind
both within and without. But the separation of those that are within from
the perfection and unity of the dove is not only known in the case of some
men to God, but even in the case of some to their fellow-men; for, by
regarding their openly abandoned life and confirmed wickedness, and
comparing it with the rules of God's commandments, they understand to what
a multitude of tares and chaff, situated now some within and some without,
but destined to be most manifestly separated at the last day, the Lord will
then say, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity,"(4) and "Depart into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."(5)
CHAP. 14.--22. But we must not despair of the conversion of any man,
whether situated within or without, so long as "the goodness of God leadeth
him to repentance,"(6) and "visits their transgressions with the rod, and
their inquiry with stripes." For in this way "He does not utterly take from
them His loving-kindness,"(7) if they will themselves sometimes "love their
own soul, pleasing God."(8) But as the good man "that shall endure unto the
end, the same shall be saved,"(9) so the bad man, whether within or
without, who shall persevere in his wickedness to the end, shall not be
saved. Nor do we say that "all, wheresoever and howsoever baptized, obtain
the grace of baptism,"(10) if by the grace of baptism is understood the
actual salvation which is conferred by the celebration of the sacrament;
but many fail to obtain this salvation even within the Church, although it
is clear that they possess the sacrament, which is holy in itself. Well,
therefore, does the Lord warn us in the gospel that we should not company
with ill-advisers,(11) who walk under the pretence of Christ's name; but
these are found both within and without, as, in fact, they do not proceed
without unless they have first been ill-disposed within. And we know that
the apostle said of the vessels placed in the great house, "If a man
therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor,
sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good
work."(12) But in what manner each man ought to purge himself from these he
shows a little above, saying, "Let every due that nameth the name of Christ
depart from iniquity,"(13) that he may not in the last day, with the chaff,
whether with that which has already been driven from the threshing-floor,
or with that which is to be separated at the last, hear the command,
"Depart from me, ye that work iniquity."(14) Whence it appears, indeed, as
Cyprian says, that "we are not at once to admit and adopt whatsoever is
professed in the name of Christ, but only what is done in the truth of
Christ."(15) But it is not an action done in the truth of Christ that men
should "seize on estates by fraudulent pretenses, and increase their gains
by accumulated usury,"(16) or that they should "renounce the world in word
only;"(17) and yet, that all this is done within the Church, Cyprian
himself bears sufficient testimony.
CHAP. 15.--23. To go on to the point which he pursues at great length,
that "they who blaspheme the Father of Christ cannot be baptized in
Christ,"(18) since it is clear that they blaspheme through error (for he
who comes to the baptism of Christ will not openly blaspheme the Father of
Christ, but he is led to blaspheme by holding a view contrary to the
teaching of the truth about the Father of Christ), we have already shown at
sufficient length that baptism, consecrated in the words of the gospel, is
not affected by the error of any man, whether ministrant or recipient,
whether he hold views contrary to the revelation of divine teaching on the
subject of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost. For many carnal and
natural men are baptized even within the Church, as the apostle expressly
says: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;"(1)
and after they had received baptism, he says that they "are yet carnal."(2)
But according to it carnal sense, a soul given up to fleshly appetites
cannot entertain but fleshly wisdom about God. Wherefore many, progressing
after baptism, and especially those who have been baptized in infancy or
early youth, in proportion as their intellect becomes clearer and brighter,
while "the inward man is renewed day by day,"(3) throw away their former
opinions which they held about God while they were mocked with vain
imaginings, with scorn and horror and confession of their mistake. And yet
they are not therefore considered not to have received baptism, or to have
received baptism of a kind corresponding to their error; but in them both
the perfection of the sacrament is honored and the delusion of their mind
is corrected, even though it had become inveterate through long
confirmation, or been, perhaps, maintained in many controversies. Wherefore
even the heretic, who is manifestly without, if he has there received
baptism as ordained in the gospel, has certainly not received baptism of a
kind corresponding to the error which blinds him. And therefore, in
returning into the way of wisdom he perceives that he ought to relinquish
what he has held amiss, he must not at the same time give up the good which
he had received; nor because his error is to be condemned, is the baptism
of Christ in him to be therefore extinguished. For it is already
sufficiently clear, from the case of those who happen to be baptized within
the Church with false views about God, that the truth of the sacrament is
to be distinguished from the error of him who believes amiss, although both
may be found in the same man. And therefore, when any one grounded in any
error, even outside the Church, has yet been baptized with the true
sacrament, when he is restored to the unity of the Church, a true baptism
cannot take the place of a true baptism, as a true faith takes the place of
a false one, because a thing cannot take the place of itself, since neither
can it give place. Heretics therefore join the Catholic Church to this end,
that what they have evil of themselves may be corrected, not that what they
have good of God should be repeated.
CHAP. 16--24. Some one says, Does it then make no difference, if two
men, rooted in like error and wickedness, be baptized without change of
life or heart, one without, the other within the Church? I acknowledge that
there is a difference. For he is worse who is baptized without, in addition
to his other sin,--not because of his baptism, however, but because he is
without; for the evil of division is in itself far from insignificant or
trivial. Yet the difference exists only if he who is baptized within has
desired to be within not for the sake of any earthly or temporal advantage,
but because he has preferred the unity of the Church spread throughout the
world to the divisions of schism; otherwise he too must be considered among
those who are without. Let us therefore put the two cases in this way. Let
us suppose that the one, for the sake of argument, held the same opinions
as Photinus(4) about Christ, and was baptized in his heresy outside the
communion of the Catholic Church; and that another held the same opinion
but was baptized in the Catholic Church, believing that his view was really
the Catholic faith. I consider him as not yet a heretic, unless, when the
doctrine of the Catholic faith is made clear to him, he chooses to resist
it, and prefers that which he already holds; and till this is the case, it
is clear that he who was baptized outside is the worse. And so in the one
case erroneous opinion alone, in the other the sin of schism also, requires
correction; but in neither of them is the truth of the sacrament to be
repeated. But if any one holds the same view as the first, and knows that
it is only in heresy severed from the Church that such a view is taught or
learned, but yet for the sake of some temporal emolument has desired to be
baptized in the Catholic unity, or, having been already baptized in it, is
unwilling on account of the said emolument to secede from it, he is not
only to be considered as seceding, but his offense is aggravated, in so far
as to the error of heresy and the division of unity he adds the deceit of
hypocrisy. Wherefore the depravity of each man, in proportion as it is more
dangerous and wanting in straightforwardness, must be corrected with the
more earnestness and energy; and yet, if he has anything that is good in
him, especially if it be not of himself, but from God, we ought not to
think it of no value because of his depravity, or to be blamed like it, or
to be ascribed to it, rather than to His bountiful goodness, who even to a
soul that plays the harlot, and goes after her lovers, yet gives His bread,
and His wine, and His oil, and other food or ornaments, which are neither
from herself nor from her lovers, but from Him who in compassion for her is
even desirous to warn her to whom she should return.(1)
CHAP. 17.--25. "Can the power of baptism," says Cyprian, "be greater or
better than confession? than martyrdom? that a man should confess Christ
before men, and be baptized in his own blood? And yet," he goes on to say,
"neither does this baptism profit the heretic, even though for confessing
Christ he be put to death outside the Church. "(2) This is most true; for,
by being put to death outside the Church, he is proved not to have had
charity, of which the apostle says, "Though I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, it profiteth in, nothing."(3) But if martyrdom is of
no avail for this reason, because it has not charity, neither does it
profit those who, as Paul says, and Cyprian further sets forth, are living
within the Church without charity in envy and malice; and yet they can both
receive and transmit true baptism. "Salvation," he says, "is not without
the Church."(4) Who says that it is? And therefore, whatever men have that
belongs to the Church, it profits them nothing towards salvation outside
the Church. But it is one thing not to have, another to have so as to be of
no use. He who has not must be baptized that he may have; but he who has to
no avail must be corrected, that what he has may profit him. Nor is the
water in the baptism of heretics "adulterous,"(4) because neither is the
creature itself which God made evil, nor is fault to be found with the
words of the gospel in the mouths of any who are astray; but the fault is
theirs in whom there is an adulterous spirit, even though it may receive
the adornment of the sacrament from a lawful spouse. Baptism therefore can
"be common to us, and the heretics,"(4) just as the gospel can be common to
us, whatever difference there may be between our faith and their error,--
whether they think otherwise than the truth about the Father, or the Son,
or the Holy Spirit; or, being cut away from unity, do not gather with
Christ, but scatter abroad,(5)--seeing that the sacrament of baptism can be
common to us, if we are the wheat of the Lord, with the covetous within the
Church, and with robbers, and drunkards, and other pestilent persons of the
same sort, of whom it is said, "They shall not inherit the kingdom of
God,"(6) and yet the vices by which they are separated from the kingdom of
God are not shared by us.
CHAP. 18.--26. Nor indeed, is it of heresies alone that the apostle
says "that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
But it may be worth while to look for a moment at the things which he
groups together. "The works of the flesh," he says "are manifest, which are
these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings,
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you
before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."(7) Let us suppose some one,
therefore, chaste, continent, free from covetousness, no idolater,
hospitable, charitable to the needy, no man's enemy, not contentious,
patient, quiet, jealous of none, envying none, sober, frugal, but a
heretic; it is of course clear to all that for this one fault only, that he
is a heretic, he will fail to inherit the kingdom of God. Let us suppose
another, a fornicator, unclean, lascivious, covetous, or even more openly
given to idolatry, a student of witchcraft, a lover of strife and
contention, envious, hot-tempered, seditious, jealous, drunken, and a
reveller, but a Catholic; can it be that for this sole merit, that he is a
Catholic, he will inherit the kingdom of God, though his deeds are of the
kind of which the apostle thus concludes: "Of the which I tell you before,
as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall
not inherit the kingdom of God ?" If we say this, we lead ourselves astray.
For the word of God does not lead us astray, which is neither silent, nor
lenient, nor deceptive through any flattery. Indeed, it speaks to the same
effect elsewhere: "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean
person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words."(8)
We have no reason, therefore, to complain of the word of God. It certainly
says, and says openly and freely, i that those who live a wicked life have
no part in the kingdom of God.
CHAP. 19.--27.--Let us therefore not flatter the Catholic who is hemmed
in with all these vices, nor venture, merely because he is a Catholic
Christian, to promise him the impunity which holy Scripture does not
promise him; nor, if he has any one of the faults above mentioned, ought we
to promise him a partnership in that heavenly land. For, in writing to the
Corinthians, the apostle enumerates the several sins, under each of which
it is implicitly understood that it shall not inherit the kingdom of God:
"Be not deceived, he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God."(1) He does not say, those who possess all
these vices together shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but neither
these nor those: so that, as each is named, you may understand that no one
of them shall inherit the kingdom of God. As, therefore, heretics shall not
possess the kingdom of God, so the covetous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God. Nor can we indeed doubt that the punishments themselves, with which
they shall be tortured who do not inherit the kingdom of God, will vary in
proportion to the difference of their offences, and that some will be more
severe than others; so that in the eternal fire itself there will be
different tortures in the punishments, corresponding to the different
weights of guilt. For indeed it was not idly that the Lord said, "It shall
be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for
thee."(2) But yet, so far as failing to inherit the kingdom of God is
concerned, it is just as certain, if you choose any one of the less heinous
of these vices, as if you choose more than one, or some one which you saw
was more atrocious; and because those will inherit the kingdom of God whom
the Judge shall set on His right hand, and for those who shall not be found
worthy to be set at the right hand nothing will remain but to be at the
left, no other announcement is left for them to hear like goats from the
mouth of the Shepherd, except, "Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for
the devil and his angels;"(3) though in that fire, as I said before, it may
be that different punishments will be awarded corresponding to the
difference of the sins.
CHAP. 20.--28. But on the question whether we ought to prefer a
Catholic of the most abandoned character to a heretic in whose life, except
that he is a heretic, men can find nothing to blame, I do not venture to
give a hasty judgment. But if any one says, because he is a heretic, he
cannot be this only without other vices also following,--for he is carnal
and natural, and therefore must be also envious, and hot-tempered, and
jealous, and hostile to truth itself, and utterly estranged from it,--let
him fairly understand, that of those other faults of which he is supposed
to have chosen some one less flagrant, a single one cannot exist by itself
in any man, because he in turn is carnal and natural; as, to take the case
of drunkenness, which people have now become accustomed to talk of not only
without horror, but with some degree of merriment, can it possibly exist
alone in any one in whom it is found? For what drunkard is not also
contentious, and hot-tempered, and jealous, and at variance with all
soundness of counsel, and at grievous enmity with those who rebuke him?
Further, it is not easy for him to avoid being a fornicator and adulterer,
though he may be no heretic; just as a heretic may be no drunkard, nor
adulterer, nor fornicator, nor lascivious, nor a lover of money, or given
to witchcraft, and cannot well be all these together. Nor indeed is any one
vice followed by all the rest. Supposing, therefore, two men,--one a
Catholic with all these vices, the other a heretic free from all from which
a heretic can be free,--although they do not both contend against the
faith, and yet each lives contrary to the faith, and each is deceived by a
vain hope, and each is far removed from charity of spirit, and therefore
each is severed from connection with the body of the one dove; why do we
recognise in one of them the sacrament of Christ, and not in the other, as
though it belonged to this or that man, whilst really it is the same in
both, and belongs to God alone, and is good even in the worst of men? And
if of the men who have it, one is worse than another, it does not follow
that the sacrament which they have is worse in the one than in the other,
seeing that neither in the case of two bad Catholics, if one be worse than
the other, does he possess a worse baptism, nor, if one of them be good and
another bad, is baptism bad in the bad one and good in the good one; but it
is good in both. Just as the light of the sun, or even of a lamp, is
certainly not less brilliant when displayed to bad eyes than when seen by
better ones; but it is the same in the case of both, although it either
cheers or hurts them differently according to the difference of their
powers.
CHAP. 21.--29. With regard to the objection brought against Cyprian,
that the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain for Christ's
name's sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do not quite see what
it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed, they urged that heretics
could much more be admitted with baptism to Christ's kingdom, to which
catechumens were admitted without it, since He Himself has said, "Except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God."(1) Now, in this matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the
Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized
heretic; nor yet do we thereby do dishonor to the sacrament of baptism
which the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do we
consider that the sacrament of the catechumen(2) is to be preferred to the
sacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some catechumens are better
and more faithful than some baptized persons. For the centurion Cornelius,
before baptism, was better than Simon, who had been baptized. For
Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit;(3)
Simon, even after baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit.(4)
Cornelius, however, would have been convicted of contempt for so holy a
sacrament, if, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to
be baptized. But when he was baptized, he received in no wise a better
sacrament than Simon; but the different merits of the men were made
manifest under the equal holiness of the same sacrament--so true is it that
the good or ill deserving of the recipient does not increase or diminish
the holiness of baptism. But as baptism is wanting to a good catechumen to
his receiving the kingdom of heaven, so true conversion is wanting to a bad
man though baptized. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit. he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," said also Himself,
"except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes
and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven:"(5)
For that the righteousness of the catechumens might not feel secure, it is
written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." And again, that the unrighteousness of the
baptized might not feel secure because they had received baptism, it is
written, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven." The one were too little without the other; the two make perfect
the heir of that inheritance. As, then, we ought not to depreciate a man's
righteousness, which begins to exist before he is joined to the Church, as
the righteousness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the body of
Christian men,--which righteousness was not thought worthless, or the angel
would not have said to him, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up as a
memorial before God;" nor did it yet suffice for his obtaining the kingdom
of heaven, or he would not have been told to send to Peter,(6)--so neither
ought we to depreciate the sacrament of baptism, even though it has been
received outside the Church. But since it is of no avail for salvation
unless he who has baptism indeed in full perfection be incorporated into
the Church, correcting also his own depravity, let us therefore correct the
error of the heretics, that we may recognize what in them is not their own
but Christ's.
CHAP. 22.--30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by
martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the
blessed Cyprian adduces(7) from the thief, to whom, though he was not
baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise."(8)
On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for
the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith
and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of
the mystery of baptism for want of time.(9) For neither was that thief
crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor
did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was
shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power. even
without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With
the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession
is made unto salvation."(10) But the want is supplied invisibly only when
the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion,
but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius
and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous
that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift
of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture,
was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by
every unmistakable sign apppropriate to those times when they spoke with
tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have the authority
of an apostle as the warrant. So far ought all of us to be from being
induced by any imperfection in the inner man, if it so happen that before
baptism a person has advanced, through the workings of a pious heart, to
spiritual understanding, to despise a sacrament which is applied to the
body by the hands of the minister, but which is God's own means for working
spiritually a man's dedication to Himself. Nor do I conceive that the
function of baptizing was assigned to John, so that it should be called
John's baptism, for any other reason except that the Lord Himself, who had
appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism of His servant,(1)
might consecrate the path of humility, and show most plainly by such an
action how high a value was to be placed on His own baptism, with which He
Himself was afterwards to baptize. For He saw, like an excellent physician
of eternal salvation, that overweening pride would be found in some, who,
having made such progress in the understanding of the truth and in
uprightness of character that they would not hesitate to place themselves,
both in life and knowledge, above many that were baptized, would think it
was unnecessary for them to be baptized, since they felt that they had
attained a frame of mind to which many that were baptized were still only
endeavoring to raise themselves.
CHAP. 23.--31. But what is the precise value of the sanctification of
the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will
on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect
on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say. Still, had it
not been of the greatest value, the Lord would not have received the
baptism of a servant. But since we must look at it in itself, without
entering upon the question of the salvation of the recipient, which it is
intended to work, it shows clearly enough that both in the bad, and in
those who renounce the world in word and not in deed, it is itself
complete, though they cannot receive salvation unless they amend their
lives. But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the
sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it
was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is
present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably
wanting. And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect
of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable "with the heart
to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto
salvation," as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning
when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition
to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are
baptized to no purpose.
CHAP. 24.--32. And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter,
though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by
Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have
been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true
conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants,
from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier
people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also
was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet
the apostle says of Abraham himself, that "he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith," having already
believed in his heart, so that "it was counted unto him for
righteousness."(2) Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should
circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day,(3) though it could
not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for
righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this
was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for
when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was
required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised,(4) and
when this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in
Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was added
afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual
sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament
of regeneration was added afterwards in the layer of baptism. And as in
Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of
this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated
the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up,
of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in
infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first,
and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will
follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body.
And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had
been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not
from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die
baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the
want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age,
they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make
confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the
vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in
their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God,
because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer
for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In
accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel what strikes every one as
natural when he reads it, "He is of age, he shall speak for himself."(1)
CHAP. 25.--33. By all these considerations it is proved that the
sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but
that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we
to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that
the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant
without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible
without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling
up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is
wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And
baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with
respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not
been received, but never when it has been despised. Nor can there be said
in any way to be a turning of the heart to God when the sacrament of God is
treated with contempt. Therefore we are right in censuring, anathematizing,
abhorring, and abominating the perversity of heart shown by heretics; yet
it does not follow that they have not the sacrament of the gospel, because
they have not what makes it of avail. Wherefore, when they come to the true
faith, and by penitence seek remission of their sins, we are not flattering
or deceiving them, when we instruct them by heavenly discipline for the
kingdom of heaven, correcting and reforming in them their errors and
perverseness, to the intent that we may by no means do violence to what is
sound in them, nor, because of man's fault, declare that anything which he
may have in him from God is either valueless or faulty.
CHAP. 26.--34. A few things still remain to be noticed in the epistle
to Jubaianus; but since these will raise the question both of the past
custom of the Church and of the baptism of John, which is wont to excite no
small doubt in those who pay slight attention to a matter which is
sufficiently obvious, seeing that those who had received the baptism of
John were commanded by the apostle to be baptized again? they are not to be
treated in a hasty manner, and had better be reserved for another book,
that the dimensions of this may not be inconveniently large.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF I/IV, Schaff). The digital version is by The Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 20108
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address: sysop@ewtn.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------